I)  ■ Wi  LLARD  Lyon 


Crx  1 554 
.L55 


LIBRARY  OF  THE  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY 


PRINCETON,  N.  J. 


Presented  by 


TUeWiMov\r  O'f  C^eorcg'e.  DM<g'c^n  , ^6 

”}"yiQP^,/1 

Division .W..../. ' ' 

,L99 


Section. 


Q 


THE  CHRISTIAN  EQUIVALENT  OF  WAR 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2017  with  funding  from 
Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


https://archive.org/details/christianequivalOOIyon 


THE  CHRISTIAN 
EQUIVALENT  OF  WAR 


BY 


/ 


D.  Willard  Lyon 


Secretary  of  the  Foreign  Department  ob 
THE  InternationalJCommittee  oe 
Young  Men’s  Christian  Associations 


New  York  : 124  East  28th  Street 
London  : 47  Paternoster  Row,  E.  C. 
1915 


Copyright,  1915,  by 

The  International  Committee  of  Young  Men’s 
Christian  Associations 


PREFACE 


This  book  is  meant  to  aid  the  fair-minded  student  in 
his  study  of  the  problems  involved  in  war.  But  war 
will  serve  only  as  an  illustration — tangible  and  vivid- — 
of  much  that  lies  deeper.  By  seeking  out  the  elemental 
factors  involved  in  the  use  of  force,  whether  they  mani- 
fest themselves  in  international,  civic,  or  social  relations, 
or  in  personal  conduct,  and  by  comparing  them  with  the 
principles  of  Jesus,  we  shall  ever  be  discovering  new 
and  far-reaching  applications  of  these  principles,  and 
thus  new  demonstrations  of  their  validity  and  power. 

The  illuminating  article  which  Professor  James  wrote 
a few  years  ago  on  “The  Moral  Equivalent  of  War”  will 
be  recognized  as  the  source  of  our  title,  which,  it  is 
scarcely  necessary  to  say,  is  in  no  way  intended  to  imply 
that  Christianity  offers  any  possible  equivalent  for  what 
is  evil  in  war.  But  if  there  is  a moral  equivalent  for  all 
that  is  good  in  war,  why  may  there  not  be  a still  more 
perfect  Christian  equivalent  which  will  include  the  moral 
value  in  a greater  spiritual  good?  Is  there  in  the 
teachings  and  spirit  of  Jesus  any  suggestion  of  an  equiva- 
lent which  will  produce  in  nations  and  races,  as  well  as 
in  individuals,  those  virile  and  forceful  qualities  of  char- 
acter which  war  seems  often  to  have  brought  to  fruition  ? 

The  underlying  thoughts  of  Jesus  have  long  been  fer- 
menting; in  these  latter  days  they  refuse  to  be  contained 
within  the  wine-skins  of  commonly  accepted  international 

3 


4 THE  CHRISTIAN  EQUIVALENT  OF  WAR 


traditions.  New  wine-skins  must  be  created  if  the  good 
wine  is  not  to  be  lost.  The  call  today  is  to  larger  and 
more  conclusive  thinking  regarding  the  application  of  the 
principles  of  Jesus  to  modern  international  and  inter- 
racial relationships,  and  in  response  to  this  call  we  now 
summon  ourselves  to  a united  study  of  present-day  prob- 
lems. 

Thanks  are  due  to  all  who  have  contributed  to  the 
thought  of  these  pages.  I wish  especially  to  acknowledge 
my  indebtedness  to  my  associates,  Gilbert  A.  Beaver,  Fred- 
erick M.  Harris,  and  Harrison  S.  Elliott,  and  to  my  sister, 
Mrs.  H.  B.  Sharman,  for  their  painstaking  criticisms  and 
suggestions. 

D,  W.  L. 

New  York,  N.  Y. 

February  15,  1915. 


CONTENTS 


Chapter  I— WHAT  IS  WRONG  IN  WAR?  page 

The  justification  of  destruction ii 

The  immoralities  of  war 13 

The  burden  of  proof 14 

A moral  purpose 15 

The  springs  of  action 15 

Selfish  ambition 16 

Greed 17 

Hatred . 18 

Retaliation 18 

Who  will  cast  the  first  stone? 19 


Chapter  H— WHAT  IS  THE  RIGHT  USE  OF 


FORCE? 

Offense  and  defense 26 

A double  standard 27 

The  meaning  of  “unselfishness” 28 

The  underlying  principle 30 

The  functions  of  force 31 

The  wider  application  .........  32 

The  “frontier”  stage 33 

The  law  of  cooperation 34 

A federation  of  the  world 35 

5 


6 


CONTENTS 


Chapter  III— WHY  LOOK  ESPECIALLY  TO 
JESUS  FOR  LIGHT  ON  THE  WAR  PROB- 


A warlike  race 42 

Military  hopes 43 

The  temptation  to  be  a military  leader  ...  43 

The  crowning  issue 45 

A courageous  decision 46 

A fresh  significance 47 

A new  world-empire 48 

Universal  values 50 


Chapter  IV— WHAT  IS  THE  MORAL  GOOD  IN 


WAR? 

The  antidote  for  degeneracy 58 

A promoter  of  culture 59 

A test  of  national  character 60 

The  fascination  of  war 61 

The  virtues  classified 62 

The  case  against  peace 63 

The  demands  of  maturity 64 

Moral  equivalent  of  war 65 

Conscription  of  labor 66 

Work  the  great  educator • 67 

The  impulse  of  a cause  68 

A permanent  cure 69 


CONTENTS 


7 


Chapter  V— HAS  JESUS  A SOCIAL  EQUIVA- 
LENT OF  WAR?  PAGE 

Jesus  and  the  great  social  movement  of  the  Jews  76 

An  antidote  for  war 77 

The  underlying  principle 7^ 

Invincible  goodwill ....  79 

The  new  movement 80 

The  Kingdom  in  modern  life 81 

The  campaign  ahead 82 

Chapter  VI— HAS  JESUS  AN  EQUIVALENT  OF 
WAR  FOR  THE  INDIVIDUAL? 

The  discipline  of  Jesus  . 88 

His  fundamental  choice  ........  89 

His  controlling  motive  ........  90 

His  manliness 90 

The  followers  of  Jesus . 91 

The  discipline  of  the  will  .......  92 

The  control  of  the  emotions  ......  93 

The  development  of  the  mind  ......  94 

A spiritual  conflict  . . .......  95 

The  influence  of  the  Cause,  . 96 

The  immediate  duty  .........  97 

The  great  adventure 98 

SUPPLEMENTARY  NOTES 105 

SELECTED  BIBLIOGRAPHY  ON  THE  WAR 

PROBLEM 149 


WHAT  IS  WRONG  IN  WAR? 


CHAPTER  I 

WHAT  IS  WRONG  IN  WAR? 

The  world  is  now  in  a position  as  never  before  to  appre- 
ciate the  inexorable  destructiveness  of  war.  Shells  which 
can  annihilate  battalions,  machine  guns  that  mow  men 
down  by  the  acre,  and  engines  of  assault  that  can  batter 
a city  to  pieces  at  a distance  of  eight  or  nine  miles,  make 
Napoleon’s  little  cannon,  shooting  across  the  narrow  valley 
at  Waterloo,  seem  like  mere  toys.  Property  worth  millions 
is  crumpled  or  sunk  in  less  time  than  it  afterwards  takes 
to  tell  the  story,  and  priceless  works  of  art  are  ruined  by 
the  forward  sweep  of  battle.  Nor  do  the  effects  end  at 
the  front:  whole  nations  are  bowed  in  sorrow  and  bear 
an  immeasurable  load  of  suffering;  even  in  the  remotest 
parts  of  the  Orient,  poverty  pinches  a little  harder  be- 
cause the  Occident  is  fighting. 

The  justification  of  destruction 

But  can  the  seriousness  of  these  effects  be  considered 
in  itself  a reason  for  condemning  war?  We  are  not  in 
the  habit  of  regarding  all  killing  as  murder.  The  police- 
man on  his  beat  is  expected  to  shoot  the  violent  criminal 
who  offers  complete  defiance  to  the  law.  If  circumstances 
clearly  indicate  that  in  no  other  way  could  he  reasonably 

II 


12  THE  CHRISTIAN  EQUIVALENT  OF  WAR 


have  hoped  to  check  the  criminal  in  his  course  and  bring 
him  to  justice,  the  policeman,  far  from  being  held  guilty 
of  crime,  is  commended  for  his  fearless  and  faithful  dis- 
charge of  a perilous  duty.  If  a band  of  desperadoes 
comes  crashing  into  a city  -where  the  police  force  is 
inadequate,  and  private  citizens  join  in  the  attempt  to 
rout  and  capture  them,  no  court  of  justice  would  hold  such 
intrepid  citizens  guilty  of  murder  if,  in  the  defense  of 
their  homes,  they  should  kill  a raider.  The  right  of  per- 
sonal self-defense  is  likewise  upheld  by  common  law,  so 
that  a man  who  enters  a private  house  by  force  may  be 
shot  down  like  a dog.  Since  there  are  circumstances  in 
which  the  taking  of  the  life  of  individuals  is  not  con- 
sidered wrong,  we  can  scarcely  escape  the  question 
whether  there  may  not  sometimes  be  conditions  which 
will  also  justify  the  wholesale  slaughter  wrought  by  an 
army. 

To  be  sure  this  question  has  been  answered  in  both 
ways  by  men  of  conscience  and  intelligence,  but  the  ma- 
jority of  thoughtful  people  would  hesitate  to  give  an 
unqualified  negative.  The  wasteful  destruction  of  prop- 
erty and  the  immense  weight  of  human  suffering  inevita- 
bly caused  by  war  can  hardly  be  cited  as  positive  proof 
that  war  is  always  wrong.  Property  is,  after  all,  mere 
matter,  and  men  who  count  it  as  worthless  for  the  sake 
of  spiritual  gain  are  surely  to  be  ranked  above  the  world’s 
time-servers.  Human  suffering,  too,  is  essential  to  prog- 
ress in  the  affairs  of  men,  and  the  world  would  lose 
much  of  its  best  heritage  if  enterprises  were  to  be  aban- 
doned because  of  the  pain  they  cause.  How  far,  there- 
fore, can  we  allow  the  external  effects  of  war  to  decide 
our  attitude  toward  it? 


WHAT  IS  WRONG  IN  WAR? 


13 


The  immoralities  of  war 

Few  would  deny  that  many  immoralities  do  follow  in  the 
wake  of  war.  Channing  unhesitatingly  declared  war  to 
be  “the  concentration  of  all  human  crimes.  . . . Un- 
der its  standard  gather  violence,  malignity,  rage,  fraud, 
perfidy,  rapacity,  and  lust.  . . . The  field  of  battle  is 
a theatre,  got  up  at  immense  cost,  for  the  exhibition  of 
crime  on  a grand  scale.”  ‘ A sober  and  dispassionate  esti- 
mate of  war  has  been  placed  on  record  by  the  English 
historian,  Lecky:  “War  is  not,  and  never  can  be,  a mere 
passionless  discharge  of  a painful  duty.  Its  essence,  and 
a main  condition  of  its  success,  is  to  kindle  into  fierce 
exercise  among  great  masses  of  men  the  destructive  and 
combative  passions — passions  as  fierce  and  as  malevolent 
as  that  with  which  the  hound  hunts  the  fox  to  its  death  or 
the  tiger  springs  upon  its  prey.  Destruction  is  one  of 
its  chief  ends.  Deception  is  one  of  its  chief  means;  and 
one  of  the  great  arts  of  skilful  generalship  is  to  deceive 
in  order  to  destroy.  Whatever  other  elements  may  min- 
gle with  and  dignify  war,  this  at  least  is  never  absent; 
and  however  reluctantly  men  may  enter  into  war,  how- 
ever conscientiously  they  may  endeavor  to  avoid  it,  they 
must  know  that  when  the  scene  of  carnage  has  once 
opened,  these  things  must  be  not  only  accepted  and  con- 
doned, but  stimulated,  encouraged  and  applauded.”  ® Gen- 
eral Sherman  is  said  to  have  epitomized  his  experience 
in  these  words : “I  confess  without  shame  that  I am  tired 
and  sick  of  the  war.  Its  glory  is  all  moonshine.  . . . 
War  is  hell.”* *  Whether  Sherman  had  in  mind  physical 
or  moral  evils,  it  will  generally  be  conceded  that  war  gives 


^ William  Ellery  Channing,  “Discourses  on  War,”  p.  81. 
’ W.  E.  H.  Lecky,  “The  Map  of  Life,”  p.  92. 

* Quoted  in  “The  Passing  of  War,”  p.  248. 


14  THE  CHRISTIAN  EQUIVALENT  OF  WAR 


men  license,  and  stimulates  them  to  commit  certain  acts 
which  in  private  life  would  be  punished  as  criminal,  such 
as : deception,  robbery,  murder,  and  rape. 

The  burden  of  proof 

But  the  question  still  remains.  Are  we  willing  to  con- 
demn war  because  of  the  immoralities  which  grow  out 
of  it?  The  mere  presence  of  these  obvious  evils  is  an 
insecure  ground  upon  which  to  base  our  condemnation. 
While  they  establish  a strong  presumption  against  it,  they 
do  not  prove  that  war  is  wrong;  for  evil,  or  the  tempta- 
tion to  evil,  is  to  be  found  in  every  human  activity.  In 
the  service  of  mankind,  for  example,  otherwise  beneficent 
enterprises  sometimes  become  so  honeycombed  with  ambi- 
tion or  jealousy  as  utterly  to  miss  their  mark.  Even  the 
exalted  practise  of  prayer,  as  James  has  pointed  out,  will 
be  made  futile  by  a desire  for  self-indulgence,  or,  as  Jesus 
has  shown,  will  be  utterly  degraded  by  a cherished  hatred, 
which  is  nothing  less  than  murder.^ 

Moreover,  such  terrible  destruction  of  life  and  property, 
and  the  opening  up  of  such  wide  temptations  to  mean  and 
vicious  action,  forces  us  either  to  look  for  a justification 
commensurate  with  the  damage  of  war,  or  to  seek  the 
elimination  of  the  evils  themselves.  But  can  they  be 
eliminated  ? Some  of  the  evils  are  so  bound  up  with  war 
as  to  seem  inevitable;  to  eliminate  the  others  would  so 
radically  transform  the  code  and  conditions  of  strife  as 
to  render  its  prosecution  next  to  impossible.  Must  we 
not,  then,  give  candid  attention  to  those  who  maintain  that 
war  is  only  to  be  undertaken  in  the  very  extremity  of  in- 
ternational difficulties  ? Dare  we  be  deaf  even  to  those  who 


^ Cf.  James  iv.  3 and  Matt.  v.  21-24. 


WHAT  IS  WRONG  IN  WAR? 


15 


feel  that  not  a single  reason  ever  offered  for  war  is  ade- 
quate to  justify  the  scattering  of  its  evils  abroad  in  the 
earth?  Surely  the  burden  of  proof  rests  with  those  who 
would  justify  war. 

A moral  purpose 

Specific  wars  of  recent  years  have  been  defended 
largely  on  the  ground  of  their  purpose.  It  is  manifest 
that  the  moral  sense  of  men  today  revolts  at  the  thought 
of  a war  with  a purpose  avowedly  immoral.  No  nation 
that  will  wage  war  with  reckless  disregard  of  moral  ob- 
jective can  long  expect  to  remain  in  the  esteem  of  the 
world.  History  records  no  modern  war  in  which  the 
moral  purpose  has  not  been  put  in  the  forefront  of  every 
appeal  for  the  cooperation  of  patriots  or  the  sympathy 
of  neutrals.  Sometimes  the  declared  purpose  has  been  to 
establish  a principle,  or  to  overthrow  an  evil ; sometimes 
to  right  a wrong,  or  to  defend  the  helpless:  but  never 
has  it  appeared  as  a desire  to  accomplish  an  unworthy 
end.  Where  wrong  purposes  lurk,  they  are  sedulously 
kept  from  sight  by  plausible  logic  and  shrewd  diplomacy; 
for  only  when  the  people  are  convinced  of  a worthy  pur- 
pose will  they  rise  to  that  degree  of  courage  and  devotion 
essential  to  the  success  of  any  war. 

The  springs  of  action 

Difficulties  multiply  for  the  sensitive  conscience.  In 
present-day  warfare  a moral  purpose  is  claimed  by  each 
nation  involved.  It  is  exceedingly  difficult,  even  after 
the  lapse  of  time,  to  weigh  motives  justly;  and  during 
the  disturbance  of  war,  this  is  quite  impossible.  More- 
over, we  no  longer  allow  that  the  end  justifies  the  means. 


i6  THE  CHRISTIAN  EQUIVALENT  OF  WAR 


Furthermore,  the  apparent  flimsiness  of  many  of  the  ex- 
cuses offered  for  the  wars  of  history  is  enough  to  arouse 
a suspicion  of  insincerity;  and  the  ultimate  outcome  even 
of  wars  waged  in  behalf  of  some  high  end,  shakes  our 
confidence  in  the  ability  of  men  to  achieve  altruistic  ends 
by  the  power  of  the  sword. 

It  begins  to  appear,  therefore,  that  the  answer  to  the 
great  question  of  our  chapter  will  not  be  found  in  any 
categorical  statement  based  on  apparent  effects  or  avowed 
objects.  The  line  which  divides  right  and  wrong  is  not 
so  easily  visible  to  the  unaided  eye.  We  must  go,  as 
Jesus  did,  to  the  springs  of  human  action,  and  in  this 
realm  He  alone  is  a trustworthy  guide.  By  the  very  con- 
ditions which  He  laid  down  for  human  progress  whether 
in  His  Sermon  on  the  Mount  or  in  the  principles  which 
controlled  His  own  decisions.  He  has  challenged  all  men 
everywhere  to  test  the  moral  values  of  life  by  inward 
motive.  What  motives  for  war  must  we,  therefore,  in  the 
light  of  the  teaching  and  example  of  Jesus,  always  and 
unqualifiedly  hold  in  condemnation? 

Selfish  ambition 

As  the  disciples  approached  the  period  in  Jesus’  life 
which  they  thought  would  be  the  beginning  of  an  earthly 
reign  of  great  glory,  they  quarreled  among  themselves 
as  to  who  should  occupy  the  positions  of  highest  honor 
and  greatest  power.^  Two  brothers,  more  politic  though 
perhaps  younger  than  their  associates,  instigated  their 
mother  to  ask  Jesus  in  their  behalf  for  the  two  places  of 
chief  preferment.'*  Jesus,  recognizing  the  motives  not 
only  of  the  two  but  also  of  the  remaining  ten  whose  jeal- 


^ Luke  xxii.  24. 


2 Matt.  XX.  20,  21;  Cf.  Mark  x.  35-37. 


WHAT  IS  WRONG  IN  WAR? 


17 


ousy  had  been  aroused,  declared  such  ambition  to  be  no 
different  from  that  which  leads  the  rulers  of  the  world 
into  ways  of  pomp  and  tyranny/  “Not  so  shall  it  be 
among  you He  said,  “but  whosoever  would  become  great 
among  you  shall  be  your  servant;  and  whosoever  would 
be  first  among  you  shall  be  your  bondservant.” *  * What 
plainer  proof  do  we  need  that  the  ambitious  lust  for  power 
is  regarded  by  Jesus  as  utterly  wrong?  To  the  extent, 
therefore,  that  war  is  due  to  such  lust  must  all  Christians 
unite  in  condemning  it.  But  here  lies  the  insidious  temp- 
tation to  misjudge  the  motives  of  others.  It  is  so  easy 
to  suspect  rulers  and  statesmen  of  selfish  ambition,  that 
we  need  constantly  to  be  on  our  guard  lest  we  do  them 
injustice.  Yet  we  dare  not  fail  to  take  an  unequivocal 
stand  on  the  principle  for  which  Jesus  Himself  firmly 
stood,  that  the  lust  of  power  is  essentially  debasing. 

Greed 

The  old  law  dearly  declared  it  wrong  for  men  not  only 
to  disregard  the  property  rights  of  others,  but  also  to 
cherish  a desire  to  do  so.®  But  it  did  not  show  why  such 
acts  are  sinful.  Jesus  revealed  the  social  principle  on 
which  the  law  against  covetousness  and  theft  was  based, 
when  He  said : “All  things  therefore  whatsoever  ye  would 
that  men  should  do  unto  you,  even  so  do  ye  also  unto 
them : for  this  is  the  law  and  the  prophets.”  * In  this 
age  of  interdependence  the  nations  of  the  world  are  less 
likely  than  formerly  to  pursue  a war  with  such  directly 
selfish  motives  as  would  be  implied  in  territorial  aggran- 


^Matt-  XX.  24,  2s;  Cf.  Mark  x.  42;  Luke  xxii  25. 

**  Matt.  XX.  26,  27  (Marg.  R.  V.).  ® Exodus  xx.  15,  17. 

* Matt.  vii.  iz. 


i8  THE  CHRISTIAN  EQUIVALENT  OF  WAR 


dizement  or  the  confiscation  of  property.’  But  as  the 
natures  of  men  have  not  changed,  we  must  not  be  sur- 
prised to  find  mingled  in  the  spirit  of  modern  warfare 
these  hurtful  and  selfish  desires,  which  in  the  light  of 
Jesus’  teaching  we  can  regard  only  as  wrong. 

Hatred 

The  old  law  said,  “Thou  shalt  not  kill.”*  The  Jewish 
tradition  added,  “Whosoever  shall  kill  shall  be  in  danger 
of  the  judgment.”*  And  yet  both  law  and  tradition  justi- 
fied the  avenger  in  pursuing  his  enemy  to  the  death.’  But 
Jesus  made  plain  that  the  sin  of  killing  is  not  determined 
by  the  overt  act  but  by  the  motive  lying  behind  the  act. 
With  incisive  clearness  He  said;  “Every  one  who  is 
angry  with  his  brother  shall  be  in  danger  of  the  judg- 
ment.” ’ Hatred,  therefore,  is  the  elemental  evil.  If  ever 
a war  is  waged  without  hatred  then  may  it  be  truly  said 
to  be  a holy  war.  But  how  can  a follower  of  Jesus  con- 
done the  sin  of  hatred?  Must  he  not  without  qualifica- 
tion condemn  all  those  elements  in  war  which  grow  out 
of  this  passion? 

M Retaliation 

The  old  law,  “An  eye  for  an  eye  and  a tooth  for  a 
tooth,”  * was  doubtless  based  on  the  ethical  good  of  pun- 
ishment, which  in  early  days  was  necessarily  entrusted 
more  or  less  to  individual  initiative.  In  the  time  of  Christ, 
however,  retribution  was  no  longer  a private  function. 
In  the  hands  of  an  individual,  what  may  once  have  been 


1 See  Supplementary  Note  II  on  “Military  Power  and  National 
Wealth.” 

2 Exodus  XX.  13.  ’Matt.  v.  21.  * Deut.  xix.  11-13. 

’Matt.  V.  22.  ® Exodus  xxi.  24;  Lev.  xxiv.  19,  20;  Deut.  xix.  21. 


WHAT  IS  WRONG  IN  WAR? 


19 


proper  retribution,  had  long  since  become  pure  retaliation. 
The  ethics  of  punishment  implies  the  highest  good  of  the 
whole  community,  including  that  of  the  one  who  is  pun- 
ished. Not  so  with  retaliation.  It  is  rooted  in  selfishness 
and  is  therefore  contrary  to  the  Golden  Rule. 

So  Jesus  unhesitatingly  declared:  “I  say  unto  you. 
Resist  not  him  that  is  evil:  but  whosoever  smiteth  thee 
on  thy  right  cheek,  turn  to  him  the  other  also.”^  And 
Paul  interpreting  His  Master’s  meaning  wrote,  “Avenge 
not  yourselves,  beloved,  but  give  place  unto  the  wrath 
of  God:  for  it  is  written.  Vengeance  belongeth  unto  me; 
I will  recompense,  saith  the  Lord.  But  if  thine  enemy 
hunger,  feed  him;  if  he  thirst,  give  him  to  drink:  for 
in  so  doing  thou  shalt  heap  coals  of  fire  upon  his  head. 
Be  not  overcome  of  evil,  but  overcome  evil  with  good.’” 
All  resistance,  therefore,  which  is  purely  retaliatory,  as, 
of  course,  all  aggression  that  partakes  of  the  same  nature, 
is  wholly  at  variance  with  the  spirit  of  Christ.  Wherever 
we  find  the  spirit  of  retaliation,  whether  in  war  or  busi- 
ness, followers  of  Jesus  must  hold  it  in  condemnation. 

Who  will  cast  the  first  stone? 

These  four  evil  motives,  at  least,  whenever  present  in 
war  make  it  evil.  But  they  are  by  no  means  confined  to 
the  day  of  battle.  Selfish  ambition,  greed,  hatred,  and 
retaliation  cannot  exist  in  war  unless  they  have  already 
had  lodgment  in  the  hearts  of  some  of  the  people.  Those 
who  would  cast  stones  of  condemnation  at  war  must  first 
see  to  it  that  they  themselves  are  without  sin.  No  one 
can  consistently  pronounce  against  the  evil  of  war  until 


^ Matt.  V.  3p. 

^ Romans  xii.  19-21. 


20  THE  CHRISTIAN  EQUIVALENT  OF  WAR 


he  has  personally  purged  his  own  heart  of  those  very 
motives  which,  when  multiplied  by  the  million,  make  war 
possible.  In  so  far,  then,  as  there  is  in  anyone  ambitious 
lust  for  power,  inordinate  desire  for  what  does  not  belong 
to  one,  uncontrolled  hatred,  or  any  spirit  of  retaliation,  in 
so  far  is  he  guilty  of  the  same  sins  which  make  war  evil. 

Those  who  live  in  countries  at  peace  need  especially 
to  be  on  their  guard  lest  they  take  the  Pharisaic  attitude 
and  thank  God  that  they  are  not  like  the  people  of  the 
other  nations  at  war.  Is  there  no  wrong  ambition  or  sel- 
fish desire,  is  there  no  hateful  or  retaliatory  spirit,  in 
their  own  national  attitude?  Have  they  been  whole- 
hearted in  their  condemnation  of  the  evil  passions  which 
come  to  explosion  in  time  of  war?  If  not,  does  it  not 
behoove  them  to  take  their  share  in  the  task  of  purging 
out  of  political  and  social  life  all  those  forces  which  tend 
to  make  men  choose  place  and  power  rather  than  service, 
sel-f-aggrandizement  rather  than  unselfishness,  retaliation 
rather  than  friendliness,  and  hatred  rather  than  love  ? 


Supplementary  Reading 

William  Ellery  Channing,  “Discourses  on  War.” 
Walter  Walsh,  “The  Moral  Damage  of  War.” 


Suggestions  for  Thought  and  Discussion 
ON  Chapter  I 

What  is  the  effect  of  war  on  the  soldier? 

In  what  ways  does  war  develop  strength  in  the  soldier? 
What  evil  passions  does  war  have  the  tendency  to  de- 
velop ? 


WHAT  IS  WRONG  IN  WAR? 


21 


What  is  the  moral  peril  to  a young  man  from  the 
country  in  going  to  war  compared  with  that  of  his  going 
to  a large  city? 

Does  war  tend  to  make  the  morally  strong  man  stronger 
or  weaker  ? 

Taking  it  all  in  all,  have  the  soldiers  of  your  acquaint- 
ance either  in  books  or  real  life  been  made  better  or 
worse  by  war?  Why  do  you  think  so? 

What  is  the  effect  of  war  upon  the  people  of  the  warring 
nationsf 

What  is  the  effect  of  war  on  internal  crime?  How  do 
you  account  for  this? 

What  feelings  does  war  develop  among  the  people 
which  they  would  be  ashamed  to  own  in  times  of  peace? 
Under  what  conditions  could  a war  be  waged  without 
producing  such  feelings? 

To  what  extent  was  the  American  war  of  independence 
a moral  blessing  or  a moral  curse  to  the  Colonists? 

When  is  war  wrong? 

To  what  extent  is  it  possible  to  eliminate  from  war 
the  evils  of  suffering  and  immorality?  How  far  should 
these  lead  us  to  condemn  war? 

Are  there  issues  which  cannot  be  settled  except  through 
war?  (See  Supplementary  Note  XIII  on  “War  and  Na- 
tional Existence.”)  When  a war  is  over  are  the  issues 
settled  which  caused  the  war?  To  what  extent  is  the 
arbitrament  of  war  accepted  as  just  and  final  by  the 
combatants  ? 

How  far  is  “my  country  right  or  wrong”  the  cause 
of  war? 


22  THE  CHRISTIAN  EQUIVALENT  OF  WAR 


What  is  the  relation  of  women  to  war? 

Why  are  women  generally  not  expected  to  go  to  war? 
Why  is  it  manly  to  fight  but  unwomanly? 

Is  a just  war  possible? 

What  are  the  four  tests  of  Jesus  which  can  be  applied 
to  determine  whether  a war  is  justifiable?  In  the  light 
of  these  tests,  discuss  whether  recent  wars  were  jus- 
tifiable. 

When  is  it  right  to  wish  your  own  nation  to  get  ahead 
of  other  nations?  (See  Supplementary  Note  H on  “Mili- 
tary Power  and  National  Wealth”;  Note  VHI  on  “War 
and  the  Expansion  of  Trade”;  Note  IX  on  “International 
Trade  Not  Organized  in  National  Units.”) 

Are  there  circumstances  under  which  a war  for  ter- 
ritory is  justifiable? 

Can  a man  be  a patriot  and  yet  have  no  feelings  of 
unfriendliness  or  contempt  or  suspicion  toward  other 
nations  ? 

To  what  extent  is  retaliation  for  wrongs  done  to  your 
own  nation  justifiable?  To  other  nations? 

How  far  is  it  practicable  for  the  Golden  Rule  to  be  ap- 
plied in  the  relationships  between  nations?  (See 
Supplementary  Note  VH  on  “William  Penn’s  Ex- 
periment.”) 

To  what  extent  are  the  relationships  of  different  na- 
tionalities in  the  United  States  of  America  a test  of  the 
possibility  of  the  application  of  the  Golden  Rule  to  inter- 
national relations? 


WHAT  IS  THE  RIGHT  USE  OF  FORCE? 


CHAPTER  II 


WHAT  IS  THE  RIGHT  USE  OF 
FORCE? 

Although  the  evil  in  war  is  plainly  evident,  we  need  to 
go  further  in  our  enquiry  to  discover  whether  after  all 
there  may  not  be  an  ethical  justification  for  some  appeal 
to  force.  Force  is  actually  in  constant  use  in  our  lives. 
We  devote  much  of  it  to  the  conquest  of  nature  for  the 
good  of  mankind,  and  in  this  realm  we  have  a common 
conviction  that  so  long  as  it  is  applied  to  a worthy  end 
it  is  right  and  good.  But  the  use  of  force  against  a 
fellow  man  is  beset  with  many  ethical  perplexities.  We 
acknowledge  that  it  is  sometimes  right  that  children 
should  be  compelled  to  obey.  We  also  feel  confident  that 
there  is  a proper  use  of  public  force  against  unruly  in- 
dividuals, whose  actions  are  a menace,  or  merely  a vexa- 
tion to  others.  But  as  we  approach  the  larger  relation- 
ships we  seem  to  lose  confidence.  We  do  not  all  feel 
equally  sure,  for  instance,  how  far  the  state  should  go 
in  compelling  men  to  abstain  from  indulging  their  physical 
appetites;  nor  are  we  quite  clear  to  what  extent  men  in 
business  can  be  forced  to  be  honest. 

Our  perplexity  increases  when  we  consider  interna- 
tional relations.  Men  shrink  from  war  not  merely  on 
account  of  those  horrors  that  are  so  revolting  to  every 
finer  instinct,  or  because  they  do  not  like  to  see  the  larger 

25 


26  THE  CHRISTIAN  EQUIVALENT  OF  WAR 


part  of  their  hard-earned  taxes  devoted  to  the  support  of 
a system  dependent  on  short-lived  battleships  and  ex- 
pensive arms  soon  outclassed.  Most  men  feel  that  a rea- 
sonable justification  for  a certain  degree  of  war  prepara- 
tion must  somehow  be  discovered.  They  confess  that 
they  would  have  a sense  of  insecurity  if  the  army  and 
navy  were  abolished. 


Offense  and  defense 

In  looking  for  such  a justification  many  men  find  men- 
tal relief  in  the  commonly  acknowledged  right  of  self- 
defense.  They  build  their  theoi’y  of  the  use  of  force 
on  two  apparently  simple  propositions : offensive  force 
is  always  wrong,  while  defensive  force  is  always  right. 
If  only  the  Gordian  knot  could  thus  easily  be  severed,  we 
should  truly  be  saved  a great  deal  of  perplexity.  But 
our  problem  is  too  complex,  as  we  may  soon  realize,  to 
admit  of  any  such  short-cut  solution.  It  is  true  that  deep 
in  every  heart  is  the  instinct  of  self-defense.  Most 
of  us,  too,  would  gladly  suffer  personal  injury  for  the 
sake  of  protecting  the  helpless  or  innocent;  and  seldom 
does  any  violence  equal  in  intensity  that  of  a mother 
defending  her  child.  And  yet,  in  trying  to  determine 
the  right  use  of  force  by  repudiating  aggression,  while 
upholding  defense,  is  it  altogether  easy  to  distinguish 
between  the  two? 

In  an  ordinary  fight  between  two  men,  for  instance, 
what  constitutes  aggression?  Is  it  the  first  blow  or  is 
it  what  was  said  and  done  before  a single  blow  was 
struck?  Or,  does  it  lie  still  further  back?  Also,  what 
constitutes  defense?  Is  it  the  act  of  parrying  the  actual 
blow,  or  may  it  include  the  prevention  of  an  anticipated 


WHAT  IS  THE  RIGHT  USE  OF  FORCE?  27 


blow?  At  what  point,  then,  does  the  defender  become 
the  aggressor?  Furthermore,  what  are  the  legitimate 
objects  of  defense?  Granting  that  a man  has  a right  to 
defend  himself  against  an  attack  on  his  life,  how  much 
does  that  right  cover?  Does  it  apply  to  occasions  of 
imminent  and  utter  peril  only,  or  may  it  include  situations 
which  probably  involve  only  slight  personal  harm  ? Then, 
again,  to  what  extent  may  one  rightly  appeal  to  force  in 
defense  of  such  other  objects  as  his  property,  his  home, 
his  interests,  or  his  honor? 

Merely  to  ask  these  questions  is  to  show  that  aggres- 
sion and  defense  blend  into  each  other  so  imperceptibly 
as  to  make  any  ethical  distinction  between  them  an 
unsafe  basis  for  a philosophy  of  force.  Moreover,  a 
quarrel  rarely  arises  between  individuals  or  classes  in 
which  each  party  does  not  consider  itself  the  victim  of 
aggression.  This  is  especially  true  of  wars;  and  if 
each  warring  nation  did  not  believe  itself  to  be  on  the 
defensive,  the  fighting  would  soon  cease  for  lack  of 
men  willing  to  fight. 

A double  standard 

If  the  right  of  self-defense  does  not  give  us  an  effec- 
tive key  to  unlock  our  perplexities,  are  we,  then,  com- 
pelled to  admit  that  the  ethical  standards  of  the  indi- 
vidual are  not  applicable  in  the  larger  social  relations? 
So  far  as  individuals  are  concerned,  we  are  fairly  clear. 
The  man  with  the  strongest  arm  is  no  longer  permitted 
to  run  loose  in  the  land,  taking  what  he  can;  we  believe 
it  right  to  employ  the  power  of  the  state  to  restrain  him. 
In  social  and  commercial  relationships  are  we  to  regard 
the  issues  as  more  debatable?  And  in  international  af- 


28  THE  CHRISTIAN  EQUIVALENT  OF  WAR 


fairs  is  the  Golden  Rule  not  to  be  recognized  as  having 
a determining  value? 

Lord  Hugh  Cecil  ably  represents  an  influential  party 
which  conscientiously  maintains  that  the  action  of  a 
state  toward  other  states  ought  not  to  be  determined  on 
the  same  basis  as  the  action  of  an  individual  toward 
other  individuals.  Although  he  confesses  that  a double 
standard  of  morality  places  the  national  leader  under  a 
severe  temptation  to  do  wrong  for  the  supposedly  altru- 
istic purpose,  of  promoting  the  interests  of  his  country, 
and  acknowledges  that  “conscience  is  drugged  at  the 
outset,  and  allows  to  'pass  unchallenged  much  that  on 
enquiry  its  tribunal  would  condemn,”  yet  he  urges  that 
“everything  which  falls  under  the  heading  of  unselfish- 
ness is  inappropriate  to  the  action  of  a state.”  And  his 
reason  is  that  we  wrongly  personify  a state ; for  it  merely 
represents  a large  aggregation  of  persons,  and  “those  who 
speak  in  its  name  and  determine  its  policy  act  not  for 
themselves  but  for  others.  . . . No  one  has  a right 
to  be  unselfish  with  other  people’s  interests.  It  is  the 
business  of  every  ruler  to  exact  to  the  utmost  every  claim 
which  can  both  justly  and  wisely  be  made  on  behalf 
of  his  country.  He  is  in  the  position  of  a trustee  of  the 
interests  of  others  and  must  be  just  and  not  generous.”  ^ 

The  meaning  of  “unselfishness'' 

But  is  it  impossible  for  justice  and  generosity  to  go 
together  ? What  is  “unselfishness”  ? Does  it  mean  merely 
the  giving  up  of  self?  If  this  were  all,  every  hermit 
buried  in  a cave,  or  every  fakir  reclining  on  a bed  of 
spikes,  would  be  an  incarnation  of  unselfishness.  Such 


1 Lord  Hugh  Cecil,  “Conservatisai,”  pp.  200-202. 


WHAT  IS  THE  RIGHT  USE  OF  FORCE?  29 


acts,  however,  often  accompany  a most  self-centered 
spirit.  Does  unselfishness,  then,  imply  the  giving  up 
of  self  for  others?  We  shall  acknowledge  this  to  be 
nearer  the  true  use  of  the  word ; and  yet  the  mother  who 
is  slavishly  unselfish  in  the  interests  of  her  child,  in 
serving  ordinary  needs,  may  wear  herself  out  so  com- 
pletely as  to  fail  to  keep  pace  with  the  real  development 
of  the  child.  Had  she  conserved  her  own  strength,  and 
given  herself  to  what  might  have  seemed  selfish  acts 
of  personal  culture,  she  might  have  fitted  herself  for  a 
longer  and  better  service.  Are  we  not  forced,  then,  to 
a still  broader  definition?  Can  a deed  be  unselfish  that 
does  not  take  into  consideration  the  ultimate  good,  as 
well  as  the  immediate  pleasure  of  others?  In  the  fullest 
sense  how  can  an  act  be  truly  unselfish  unless  it  con- 
templates the  good,  not  merely  of  those  immediately 
concerned,  but  of  all  men  who  may  ever  be  affected 
by  it? 

In  ■ such  a sense  the  fundamental  moral  law,  as  ex- 
pressed in  the  Golden  Rule,  is  surely  as  binding  on  na- 
tions as  on  individuals : both  are  under  moral  obliga- 
tions to  act  for  the  highest  good  of  all  concerned.  This 
does  not  destroy  the  motive  of  self-interest,  but  purifies 
it  by  subordinating  such  interest  to  the  interests  of 
others. 

Then,  again,  are  we  ready  to  follow  out  the  implica- 
tions of  Lord  Cecil’s  declaration  that  no  one  has  a right 
to  be  unselfish  with  other  people’s  interests?  While 
trustees  must  decide  what  are  the  highest  interests  of 
the  people  they  serve,  have  they  a right  to  serve  these 
interests  selfishly?  The  best  thought  of  the  world  would 
justly  condemn  a ruler  who  deliberately  led  the  people 
into  a great  act  of  robbery.  The  citizens  of  the  United 


30  THE  CHRISTIAN  EQUIVALENT  OF  WAR 


States  did  not  think  that  the  Government  was  playing 
the  traitor  when  it  gave  back  to  China  the  unused  part 
of  the  Boxer  Indemnity.  When  has  a truly  unselfish  na- 
tional policy  ever  been  given  a fair  trial  without  work- 
ing out  to  the  ultimate  good  of  the  nation  projecting 
it?  What  evidence  is  there  to  prove  that  the  application 
of  the  Golden  Rule  to  international  relations  would  work 
disaster  ? ^ 

The  underlying  principle 

If,  then,  we  find  it  difficult  to  concede  a standard  of 
morality  for  nations  different  from  that  for  individuals, 
and  if  the  age-old  instinct  of  self-defense  provides  an 
insecure  ground  on  which  to  justify  such  uses  of  force 
as  seem  necessary  in  society,  we  are  driven  to  seek  a 
more  satisfactory  solution  of  our  problem  in  some  other 
direction.  Whither  shall  we  turn? 

As  will  appear  more  clearly  at  a later  point  in  the 
discussion,  the  very  perplexities  we  are  now  confront- 
ing were  consciously  faced  by  Jesus  on  various  occa- 
sions in  His  career.  When  Jewish  opposition  had  rip- 
ened into  the  crisis  of  Gethsemane,  the  leader  of  the 
apostolic  band  quickly  drew  his  sword  in  defense  of  His 
Master.  But  a quiet  word  from  Jesus  sent  the  sword 
back  into  its  sheath.®  That  this  attitude  was  no  tem- 
porary expedient  to  avoid  a conflict  when  His  own  re- 
sources were  limited  is  shown  by  the  whole  tenor  of  His 
life.  In  fact,  on  this  very  occasion  Jesus  felt  that  He 
had  at  His  command  twelve  legions  of  angels  who 
would  immediately  have  come  to  His  rescue  had  He 


1 See  Supplementary  Note  VII  on  “Wm.  Penn’s  Experiment.’ 
^ Matt.  xxvi.  52. 


WHAT  IS  THE  RIGHT  USE  OF  FORCE?  31 


called  them/  He  must,  therefore,  have  been  acting 
from  principle.  Can  we  discover  any  hint  as  to  what 
it  was? 

Imbedded  in  the  Mosaic  documents,  as  in  a ball  of 
amber,  Jesus  had  found  a law  which  was  but  a dead  stat- 
ute; no  one  had  yet  been  able  to  live  up  to  it,  and  so 
men  explained  away  its  deepest  meaning.  But,  when 
Jesus  issued  it  as  a “new  commandment,”  and  called  on 
men  to  love  one  another  according  to  the  new  standard 
which  He  Himself  had  set,  and  in  the  power  which  He 
had  to  give,  it  became  the  vital  principle  for  an  ultimate 
social  reconstruction.  In  its  old  form  it  read:  “Thou 
shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself.”  ^ But  the  new  form, 
as  recorded  in  the  Gospel  of  John,  was:  “A  new  com- 
mandment I give  unto  you,  that  ye  love  one  another ; even 
as  I have  loved  you,  that  ye  also  love  one  another.”* 
Henceforth  there  could  be  no  more  quibbling  over  the 
significance  of  the  word  “neighbor,”  for  by  His  matchless 
example  He  had  enlarged  its  content  to  include  all  men, 
of  all  lands,  in  all  ages,  and  under  all  conditions.  Be- 
cause of  all  that  He  knew  to  be  involved,  therefore, 
Jesus  resolutely  refused  to  do  anything  which  would 
hinder  the  fulfilment  of  His  law  of  love  for  all  mankind. 
No  physical  compulsion  could  ever  bring  the  spiritual 
victory  in  men’s  hearts  which  He  would  gain. 

The  functions  of  force 

Translated  into  the  life  of  today,  the  law  of  love  which 
Jesus  issued  implies  the  cooperation  of  all  for  the  high- 
est good  of  all.  This  suggests  a three-fold  analysis  of 
the  functions  of  force  in  society:  (i)  That  which  seeks 


1 Matt.  xxvi.  53. 


® Lev.  xix.  18. 


*John  xiii.  34. 


32  THE  CHRISTIAN  EQUIVALENT  OF  WAR 


directly  to  promote  mutual  cooperation  for  the  common 
good;  (2)  That  which  seeks  to  destroy,  attack,  or  im- 
pede such  cooperation;  (3)  That  which  seeks  to  neu- 
tralize the  destroying,  attacking,  or  impeding  force.  The 
second  of  these  functions  is  plainly  at  variance  with  the 
common  good.  The  first  and  third  should  help  us  de- 
termine what  is  the  right  use  of  force. 

So  long  as  police  power  is  held  strictly  to  its  purpose 
of  ensuring  order,  it  is  a promoter  of  cooperation.  The 
law-breaker  refuses  to  cooperate  with  society;  and,  were 
his  kind  to  increase,  cooperation  would  ultimately  be- 
come impossible.  Thus  the  good  of  the  whole  com- 
munity requires  that  he  be  restrained,  and  in  exercising 
this  function  of  restraint  the  policeman  is  the  agent, 
not  of  conflict  but  of  cooperation.^ 

In  new  and  frontier  communities  each  man  is  the  maker 
and  defender  of  his  own  laws.  As  soon,  however,  as  the 
community  becomes  articulated  and  a common  govern- 
ment is  established,  the  individual  no  longer  finds  it 
profitable  or  prudent  to  be  his  own  judge  and  sheriff. 
In  the  interest  of  effective  cooperation  he  yields  to  the 
authority  of  common  government,  and  so  police  protection 
supersedes  individual  armament.  Once  this  is  effected 
cooperation  becomes  the  organizing  principle  of  the  com- 
munity, and  only  thus  are  the  rights  of  individuals  ade- 
quately protected,  and  the  prosperity  and  advancement 
of  the  community  made  sure. 

The  wider  application 

Thus  we  face  immediately  the  great  question:  Can  we 
not  apply  this  same  principle  among  the  nations?  Not 

1 For  a full  and  graphic  discussion  see  Norman  Angell,  “The  Great 
Illusion,”  pp.  263,  264. 


WHAT  IS  THE  RIGHT  USE  OF  FORCE?  33 


to  do  so  means  that  we  refuse  to  accept  the  greatest 
good  of  all  mankind  as  a purpose  of  life.  For  if  we 
are  content  to  seek  the  interests  of  our  own  nation  only, 
these  interests  will,  to  some  degree  at  least,  conflict  with 
those  of  other  nations,  and  cooperation  will  to  that  degree 
become  impossible.  Moreover,  unless  the  nations  co- 
operate, the  people  of  different  nations  will  find  it  dif- 
ficult to  realize  their  desires  to  live  for  the  good  of  the 
whole  world.  If  we  do  not  apply  this  principle  of  Jesus 
to  international  relationships,  how  can  we  hope  to  find 
any  other  foundation  on  which  to  build  a universal 
system  of  international  ethics?  On  any  narrower  basis, 
when  national  interests  clash,  as  they  inevitably  will, 
where  shall  we  find  any  standards  of  justice  which  will 
command  the  moral  assent  of  the  conflicting  parties? 

It  is  to  be  recognized  that  in  the  gradual  erection  of 
a state  out  of  the  wilderness,  each  of  the  scattered  set- 
tlers first  lives  the  life  of  a pioneer.  Gradually  as  co- 
operation becomes  useful  or  necessary  a spirit  of  mutual 
sympathy  and  understanding  develops.  United  effort  im- 
plies confidence,  and  also  creates  it.  When  interdepen- 
dence has  become  the  order  of  the  day,  there  emerges  a 
system  of  social  intercourse  which  makes  possible  a truly 
corporate  life.  Individual  sacrifices  are  necessary  at 
every  step  of  the  way;  each  man  must  give  up  some  of  his 
rights,  and,  harder  still,  many  of  his  prejudices. 

The  “frontier”  stage 

In  their  relations  with  one  another  the  nations  are 
as  yet  in  the  “frontier”  stage.  They  are  not  closely 
enough  articulated  to  make  cooperation  completely  ef- 
fective. Each  one  is  still  a law  to  itself;  and  whenever 


34  the  CHRISTIAN  EQUIVALENT  OF  WAR 


a dispute  becomes  sufficiently  serious,  the  resort  is  to 
arms.  In  the  new  world,  as  relationships  become  more 
complex  and  intimate,  the  number  of  possible  points  of 
friction  will  be  greatly  multiplied.  While  the  forces 
working  for  cooperation  have  constantly  increased^  the 
difficulty  of  maintaining  high  moral  standards  is  also 
much  greater  than  ever.  Now  is  the  time  to  apply  the 
principles  of  cooperation.  We  may  be  at  the  Great  Di- 
vide of  modern  history;  are  we  not  now  determining  the 
direction  in  which  the  river  of  progress  is  henceforth 
to  flow? 

The  law  of  cooperation 

Shall  not  the  nations  consecrate  force  to  the  twin  pur- 
poses of  promoting  mutual  cooperation  for  the  common 
good  of  all  the  world,  and  of  neutralizing  all  force  that 
seeks  to  destroy,  attack,  or  impede  such  cooperation? 
The  task  will  not  be  easy.  But  it  has  not  been  easy 
to  bring  civilization  out  of  frontier  conditions.  Man’s 
progress  toward  liberty  and  order  has  been  a hard  road 
to  travel;  it  is  dotted  with  the  marks  of  pain,  and  sanc- 
tified by  the  blood  of  heroes.  All  the  faith,  patience, 
and  wisdom  that  men  possess  have  barely  enabled  us  to 
keep  moving  on.  Struggle  and  conflict  there  has  always 
been,  and  yet  we  have  gone  forward.  Our  governments 
are  cumbersome,  our  laws  are  imperfect,  and  their  ad- 
ministration a perennial  difficulty;  but  for  all  that  we  are 
better  off  than  the  pioneers.  And  will  the  spirit  that 
has  accomplished  this  own  itself  helpless  now? 

This  law  of  cooperation  requires  that  each  government 


1 See  Supplementary  Note  VIII  on  ‘‘War  and  the  Expansion  of 
Trade.** 


WHAT  IS  THE  RIGHT  USE  OF  FORCE?  35 


shall  make  sure  in  all  it  plans  to  do  what  is  for  the  good 
not  only  of  its  own  people,  but  also  of  all  other  peo- 
ples. Everything  which  breeds  suspicion  must  be  avoided. 
All  racial  or  national  prejudice  must  be  resolutely  over- 
come, and  mutual  confidence  cultivated.  All  existing 
bonds  of  fellowship  will  need  to  be  strengthened,  and 
friendly  intercourse  must  be  encouraged.  Thus  will  there 
develop  such  a mutual  understanding  and  sincerity  of 
purpose  among  nations  as  always  exists  among  friends. 

A federation  of  the  world 

Nations  must,  of  course,  devise  some  method  of  pro- 
tection from  injustice  and  oppression.  But  so  long  as  the 
exercise  of  this  function  remains  under  the  sovereign 
control  of  each  separate  state  there  is  constant  danger 
of  its  abuse,  both  because  a party  to  a quarrel  is  never 
qualified  to  act  as  an  impartial  judge  on  the  merits  of 
the  case,  and  also  because  the  very  power  to  defend  one’s 
own  position  by  an  appeal  to  force  tends  to  render  the 
conscience  less  sensitive  to  the  rights  of  others. 

Until  the  poet’s  vision  of  a Parliament  of  Man  and  a 
Federation  of  the  World  is  realized  there  may  be  oc- 
casions when  nations  will  feel  it  a conscientious  duty 
to  use  the  bungling  and  exhausting  methods  of  war  to 
stay  the  forces  of  injustice,  or  to  defend  the  true  and 
right.  That  there  is  a more  effective  way  to  stop  injus- 
tice has  been  demonstrated  in  every  other  organic  re- 
lationship of  life,  and  even  in  international  relations — the 
most  complex  of  all — enough  experiments  have  been 
made'  to  give  some  confidence  that  the  day  will  ulti- 


1 See  Supplementary  Note  X on  “The  Growing  Desire  for  Arbitra- 
tion.” 


36  THE  CHRISTIAN  EQUIVALENT  OF  WAR 


mately  come  when  all  men’s  good  shall  be  each  man’s 
rule 

“and  Universal  Peace 
Lie  like  a shaft  of  light  across  the  land, 

And  like  a lane  of  beams  athwart  the  sea.” 


Supplementary  Reading 

William  Leighton  Grane,  “The  Passing  of  War.” 
H.  E.  Warner,  “The  Ethics  of  Force.” 


Suggestions  for  Thought  and  Discussion 
ON  Chapter  H 

When  is  it  wrong  to  defend  one’s  self? 

Under  what  circumstances  has  a man  no  right  to  defend 
himself  when  he  is  attacked? 

Is  there  any  insult  which  justifies  the  use  of  retalia- 
tory force?  What,  for  instance? 

Is  the  principle  underlying  the  words  “Whosoever 
smiteth  thee  on  thy  right  cheek,  turn  to  him  the  other 
also”  (Matthew  v.  39)  practicable  today? 

How  far  is  it  right  to  use  force  to  defend  someone  else? 

If  a “bully”  attacks  a person  weaker  than  himself, 
what  should  the  bystander  do? 

What  is  it  right  to  do  to  one  who  insults  your  own  or 
someone  else’s  sister? 

If  you  see  or  hear  a man  acting  brutally  toward  his 
own  wife  or  children,  to  what  extent  is  it  right  for  you 
to  interfere? 


WHAT  IS  THE  RIGHT  USE  OF  FORCE?  37 


How  far  is  the  use  of  force  right  in  business? 

Why  is  it  wrong  to  get  a “corner”  on  any  commodity? 

When  does  it  become  wrong  to  “cut”  prices? 

Is  a “boycott”  right?  Why? 

When  is  a government  not  justified  in  placing  a re- 
straint on  trade? 

When  is  it  right  for  parents  to  use  force  in  dealing  with 
their  children? 

How  far  should  the  child’s  reason  be  satisfied?  Sup- 
pose the  child  is  too  young  to  be  reasoned  with?  Or, 
suppose  the  conditions  are  such  that  there  is  no  time  to 
reason  ? 

What  should  be  the  parent’s  object  in  using  coercion? 

What  feelings  in  the  parent  tend  to  nullify  the  value 
of  any  discipline  he  may  administer?  Why? 

What  is  the  legitimate  function  of  force? 

Is  all  conflict  war?  (See  Supplementary  Note  VI  on 
“Relation  of  Man’s  Struggle  with  Nature  to  his  Struggle 
with  Fellow-man.”)  How  far  is  conflict  necessarily  un- 
friendly ? 

How  far  would  force  be  needed  in  an  ideal  state  of 
society?  (See  Supplementary  Noto  I on  “The  Sub- 
sidence of  Force  in  the  Narrower  Social  Relations.”) 

What  are  the  legitimate  duties  of  the  state,  the  family, 
and  the  individual  in  the  use  of  force? 

To  what  extent  can  the  ethics  of  the  individual  in  the 
use  of  force  be  applied  to  nations? 

Why  do  certain  Christian  bodies  preach  and  practise  the 
policy  of  complete  non-resistance?  (See  Supplementary 
Note  IV  on  “Do  the  Old  Testament  Sanctions  of  War 


38  THE  CHRISTIAN  EQUIVALENT  OF  WAR 


Still  Hold?”)  Is  it  practicable  and  wise?  (See  Sup- 
plementary Note  HI  on  “Are  the  Best  Armed  Nations 
the  Most  Prosperous  Commercially?”;  and  Note  V on 
“Relation  of  the  Economic  to  the  Ethical  Aspect  of 
War.”) 

IVhat  is  necessary  to  make  force  effective? 

What  functions  of  the  policeman  of  today  would  be 
eliminated  and  what  retained  if  force  could  be  ideally 
used? 

What  considerations  should  determine  the  strength  of 
the  army  and  navy?  How  far  should  their  size  depend 
merely  upon  actual  present  conditions  and  how  far  on 
possible  future  emergencies  ? 

To  what  extent  is  armament  necessary  to  the  legiti- 
mate use  of  force  by  a nation?  Would  there  be  need 
for  an  army  and  navy  if  war  were  impossible? 

What  should  he  the  attitude  of  the  individual  toward  the 
use  of  force? 

To  what  extent  can  the  principle  of  “cooperation  of  all 
for  the  highest  good  of  all”  be  used  in  relations 
among  nations?  In  relations  among  individuals? 
(See  Supplementary  Note  X on  “The  Growing  De- 
sire for  Arbitration.”) 


WHY  LOOK  ESPECIALLY  TO  JESUS  FOR 
LIGHT  ON  THE  WAR  PROBLEM? 


CHAPTER  III 


WHY  LOOK  ESPECIALLY  TO  JESUS 
FOR  LIGHT  ON  THE  WAR 
PROBLEM? 

In  discussing  the  moral  issues  involved  in  war,  or  in 
any  other  appeal  to  physical  force,  we  have,  most  nat- 
urally, been  turning  to  Jesus  for  light.  But  the  question 
will  rise  in  the  minds  of  some,  why  the  “meek  and  lowly” 
Jesus  should  in  any  special  sense  be  regarded  an  au- 
thority on  war. 

In  frankly  facing  this  question  we  shall  need  to  re- 
member that  Jesus  lived  in  a military  age.  For  genera- 
tions Palestine  had  been  the  meeting-place  of  the  East  and 
the  West.  In  the  days  when  Jerusalem  was  a mere 
collection  of  huts  Judea  was  the  buffer  state  between 
Egypt  and  Babylon,  and  the  commerce  of  these  great 
countries  crossed  its  plains  continuously.  The  powerful 
nations  preyed  on  the  Jews,  making  war  against  them 
on  the  slenderest  pretexts.  They  repeatedly  carried  the 
people  into  captivity;  and,  crowning  insult  of  all,  they 
even  fought  each  other  on  Israel’s  fertile  plains. 

Alexander  the  Great  had  led  his  soldiers  up  and  down 
the  land  and  had  ousted  the  Persians  from  their  control, 
but  the  fiery  Maccabees  had  thrown  off  the  yoke  of  their 
Greek  overlords,  thus  winning  for  their  nation  a brief 

41 


42  THE  CHRISTIAN  EQUIVALENT  OF  WAR 


independence.  Then  came  the  Romans,  who  operated 
their  armies  from  Antioch  on  the  North  and  carried  all 
before  them,  making  of  Palestine  but  another  province 
of  their  world-empire.  The  Roman  Empire  was  thus 
the  background  of  the  life  of  the  Jews  in  the  first  cen- 
tury. From  the  hills  above  Nazareth  Jesus  could  see 
the  Latin  legions  marching  on  the  magnificent  high- 
way of  Esdraelon  from  the  sea  to  Damascus.  Rome  and 
her  armies  stood  for  the  crowning  success  of  life.  Had 
she  not  conquered  all  that  was  worth  conquering?  Were 
not  her  roads  the  highways,  not  only  of  commerce,  but 
also  of  thought  and  culture?  Was  not  the  throne  of 
David  itself  now  occupied  by  a Roman  governor,  and 
had  not  the  legislation  of  Moses  been  put  below  Roman 
law? 


A warlike  race 

Jesus  came  also  to  a people  of  warlike  passions.  The 
Jews  did  not  accept  the  situation  passively.  In  Judea  the 
exclusive  Pharisees  and  their  adherents  remained  silent 
and  sullen,  looking  with  hate  and  scorn  both  on  the  Ro- 
man and  on  every  member  of  their  own  race  who  was 
currying  his  favor.  In  Galilee,  although  the  spirit  of  the 
people  was  more  liberal,  although  their  minds  were  open 
to  the  influences  that  played  upon  them,  there  was 
smouldering  an  eternal  revolt.  Jesus  grew  up  near  the 
home  of  the  sons  of  Judas  of  Galilee,  those  brave  pa- 
triots who  were  to  die  soon  after  His  death  for  taking 
part  in  a struggle  for  freedom.  The  very  air  He  breathed 
was  surcharged  with  revolution.  These  people  had  not 
forgotten  the  heroes  of  their  past.  The  idol  of  their 
race,  their  own  David,  was  a mighty  warrior-king,  who 


WHY  LOOK  TO  JESUS  FOR  LIGHT? 


43 


had  saved  his  people  from  their  enemies.  Had  not  the 
might  of  her  leaders  throughout  the  centuries  made 
Israel  rise  to  the  highest  heights?  And  was  it  not  by 
the  might  of  her  enemies  that  she  was  now  plunged  into 
the  very  pit  of  degradation? 

Military  hopes 

Jesus  found  among  the  Jews  more  than  a military 
spirit.  He  discovered  a people  looking  for  a great  gen- 
eral. Their  prophets  had  led  them  to  expect  that  some 
day  there  would  appear  a worthy  successor  to  the  war- 
rior David,  who  should  lead  them  on  to  new  and  greater 
victories.  There  were  many,  especially  in  Galilee,  who, 
thinking  of  their  Messiah  as  the  lion  who  was  to  deliver 
them  from  the  Romans,  were  ready,  whatever  the  odds, 
to  rise  at  the  first  call  of  the  Coming  One.  They  looked 
upon  Him  as  a leader  of  armies,  a Commander-in-Chief. 
Surely  He  would  free  God’s  chosen  people  from  the  hated 
conqueror  and  reestablish  the  lost  Kingdom  of  the  great 
David.  Quite  apart  from  the  hopes  inspired  by  prophets 
it  is  little  to  be  wondered  at  that  the  Jews  felt  strongly 
the  need  for  freedom.  Simple  patriotism  would  have 
driven  them  to  desperate  schemes,  and  the  world  knew 
but  one  path  to  liberty,  the  path  which  lay  along  dark 
valleys  of  desolation  and  death. 

The  temptation  to  he  a military  leader 

Jesus  could  not  have  been  insensible  to  the  grievances 
of  the  age.  He  must  have  felt  the  wrongs  of  His  coun- 
trymen as  keenly  as  any  other  descendant  of  David. 
He  belonged  to  a race  with  a noble  history,  which  be- 
lieved itself  especially  called  to  fulfil  a divine  mission. 


44  the  CHRISTIAN  EQUIVALENT  OF  WAR 


But  the  glory  of  the  race  had  departed,  and  its  oppor- 
tunity to  influence  the  world  had  seemingly  passed.  It 
was  no  longer  free  to  work  out  its  destiny,  but  was  tram- 
pled under  foot  by  powerful  Rome — fearless,  successful, 
and  implacable.  The  sword  was  Rome’s  only  title  to 
the  soil  of  Palestine.  The  Emperor  was  a tyrant,  the 
Roman  governors  of  the  Jewish  provinces  were  cruel, 
and  the  Herodians  and  the  Sadducees,  their  henchmen, 
were  objects  of  contempt.  Was  not  the  cause  of  Israel 
a just  one,  and  should  not  her  liberation  command  the 
courage  and  fidelity  of  every  lover  of  righteousness? 

The  temptation  to  fulfil  the  popular  ideal  of  a mili- 
tary Messiah  was  one  of  Jesus’  great  temptations.  The 
simple  but  graphic  story  has  Him  standing  on  the  top  of 
an  exceeding  high  mountain,  where  He  views  the  King- 
doms of  the  world  in  vivid  panorama.^  The  world’s  way 
to  win  these  Kingdoms  was  through  the  worship  of  Force. 
The  popular  leadership  of  a mighty  commander  had  its 
manifest  advantages.  A successful  conquest  under  a 
wise  and  indomitable  leader  had  in  the  course  of  his- 
tory often  brought  happiness  to  distracted  peoples.  Then, 
too,  there  might  accrue  an  enlarged  opportunity  for 
spiritual  influence  when  once  His  power  had  been  estab- 
lished ! The  intense  reality  of  His  inner  struggles  is 
hidden  in  His  passionate  reply : “Get  thee  hence,  Satan : 
for  it  is  written.  Thou  shalt  worship  the  Lord  thy  God, 
and  him  only  shalt  thou  serve.”  To  have  yielded  to  this 
temptation  would  have  implied  a denial  of  God.  Jesus 
realized  that  “deeper  down  than  militarism  lies  the  ma- 
terialism out  of  which  it  springs.  The  whole  idea  that 
armed  force  can  overthrow  false  ideals  or  establish  true 


^ Matt.  iv.  8-io;  Luke  iv.  s-8. 


WHY  LOOK  TO  JESUS  FOR  LIGHT? 


45 


ones,  rests  upon  an  inadequate  conception  of  God,  and 
a failure  to  rely  fully  upon  the  power  of  love  and  good- 
ness to  overcome  evil.”  ^ 

The  crowning  issue 

Jesus  accepted,  and  indeed  assumed,  the  Messianic  title, 
but  positively  rejected  the  conditions  the  Jews  would  im- 
pose. He  won  many  people  to  Him  in  the  early  days  of 
His  ministry;  but  when  the  conditions  of  discipleship  be- 
came clear,  they  deserted  Him  in  multitudes.  When 
they  found  that  He  had  no  thought  of  coming  to  blows 
with  Rome,  that  the  Kingdom  which  He  was  about  to 
inaugurate  was  to  be  a Kingdom  in  which  the  material 
success  of  the  Hebrew  nation  had  no  place,  and  that  He 
had  thus  belied  their  hopes,  they  rose  against  Him  in 
fury.  It  is  not  to  be  wondered  at  that  the  ordinary  Jew 
could  not  understand  what  Jesus  was  about.  Those  who 
were  keyed  up  to  a supreme  sacrifice  under  the  leader- 
ship of  the  promised  messenger  of  God  were  hardly  in 
a position  to  see  the  glory  of  a Kingdom  founded,  not  on 
force,  but  on  brotherly  love.  The  yearnings  of  a nation 
burning  with  shame  and  indignation  are  not  easily  turned 
aside,  so  they  came  to  Him  again  and  again  to  press 
on  Him  what  seemed  to  them  the  larger  vocation.  They 
insisted  that  He  become  their  great  King,  and  it  could 
hardly  have  been  an  easy  thing  for  Him  to  resist  their 
pleadings  and  hide  Himself  in  seclusion,  leaving  a dis- 
appointed people  behind  Him.  At  last  their  leaders  de- 
nounced Him  to  the  Roman  authorities  as  one  who  called 
Himself  the  King  of  the  Jews:  had  He  been  willing  to 


^ Henry  T.  Hodgkin,  “The  Church’s  Opportunity  in  the  Present 
Crisis,”  pp.  6,  7. 


46  THE  CHRISTIAN  EQUIVALENT  OF  WAR 


be  a King  after  their  manner,  they  would  doubtless  have 
followed  Him  into  the  presence  of  Pilate  with  swords 
of  defiance.  The  Romans  cared  little  for  the  charge  of 
blasphemy,  but  they  knew  enough  of  Hebrew  history  to 
take  no  chances  with  rising  kings. 

A courageous  decision 

Only  an  unbalanced  estimate  of  character  can  suggest 
that  fear  played  any  part  in  this  decision.  Where  is 
there  the  slightest  hint  in  the  early  records  of  the  ef- 
feminate traits  of  later  portrayals  of  Jesus?  What  did 
the  usurping  money-changers  think  of  Him?  As  they 
crowded  the  outer  court  of  the  Temple  they  were  numer- 
ous enough  to  have  thrown  Him  headlong  into  the  street, 
and  His  whip  of  cords  would  have  been  of  little  avail 
against  their  assaults;  but  none  of  them  could  endure 
the  fearless  indignation  of  His  righteous  soul.  Did  His 
attitude  to  the  Pharisees  show  lack  of  courage?  They 
were  no  mean  enemy,  and  in  going  against  them  Jesus 
took  the  first  step  toward  His  doom.  But  we  do  not 
find  that  He  minced  matters.  “Hypocrites,”  “thieves,” 
“blind  leaders  of  the  blind,”  “whited  sepulchers” — are 
such  uncompromising  epithets  as  these  consistent  with 
cowardice?  The  accounts  of  the  trial  of  Jesus  contain 
not  a single  hint  of  any  flinching  on  the  part  of  the  vic- 
tim. In  the  cold  morning  hours,  when  courage  drips  out 
at  the  icy  finger-tips,  dressed  in  the  most  hideous  mockery 
of  royal  garments,  Jesus  played  the  part  of  a king.  The 
Roman  governor  knew  himself  to  be  ridiculously  power- 
less in  the  face  of  such  calm  determination,  and  he  ad- 
mired it.  What  but  real  courage  could  have  drawn  the 
admiration  of  the  cruel  and  time-serving  Pilate? 


WHY  LOOK  TO  JESUS  FOR  LIGHT? 


47 


Not  the  least  courageous  act  of  Jesus’  life  was  His 
turning  away  from  the  military  ideal  set  up  for  Him  by 
the  people.  It  required  the  supremest  resolution.  Was 
He  afraid  that  He  might  fail  as  a military  leader?  Did 
He  hesitate  to  take  up  the  command  of  a distant  and 
difficult  enterprise?  Did  He  shudder  from  tying  Himself 
up  to  a forlorn  hope  ? Let  history  answer : He  led  a for- 
lorner  hope  to  a grander  issue.  Death  “with  honor”  on 
the  battlefield  would  have  been  far  easier  than  the  hu- 
miliation of  the  cross.  Yet  to  this  bitter  end  He  set 
Himself  with  no  sign  of  swerving.  The  temptation  was 
not  finally  overcome  in  forty  days.  The  tempter  had  left 
Him  only  “for  a season.”  When  Jesus  came  to  Jeru- 
salem to  die  it  was  still  not  too  late  to  lead  a revolution. 
The  people  greeted  Him  with  Hosannas ; and  such  Ho- 
sannas were  not  intended  for  one  who  was  to  give  Him- 
self up  to  the  Romans  as  a voluntary  sacrifice,  but  for 
the  King  who  was  to  lead  them  to  victory.  Jesus,  how- 
ever, did  not  refuse  to  drink  the  cup  to  its  dregs.  He 
counted  it  the  climax  of  His  career.  His  day  of  triumph. 
The  eager  disciple,  who  would  have  defended  Him  in 
the  Garden  of  Gethsemane,  was  told  to  put  up  his  sword, 
and  the  Messiah  chose  to  conquer  through  death. 

A fresh  significance 

To  appreciate  the  intensity  of  the  struggle  which  Jesus 
maintained  against  the  military  spirit  and  aspirations  of 
His  day  is  to  place  His  words  in  fresh  and  bold  relief. 
What  striking  authority  they  carry  when  considered  in 
connection  with  His  personal  experience ! His  whole 
life  hangs  together.  Even  those  who  are  usually  suspi- 
cious of  theorists  know  that  He  was  one  who  “practised 


48  THE  CHRISTIAN  EQUIVALENT  OF  WAR 


what  he  preached.”  Any  who  are  tempted  to  dilute  His 
teachings  are  instantly  checked  when  they  realize  the  sig- 
nificance of  the  decisive  acts  of  His  life,  which  illumi- 
nate all  His  words.  He  thought  and  worked  always  in 
the  spirit  of  His  Kingdom. 

What  word  was  oftener  on  His  lips  than  this  very 
word  “Kingdom,”  and  how  much  more  it  meant  to  Him 
than  to  the  prophets  who  had  gone  before ! He  sought 
to  transform  and  enlarge  its  content.  Much  of  His  teach- 
ing dealt  with  its  principles,  and  the  conditions  to  be 
fulfilled  in  its  realization.  Long  had  He  pondered  before 
He  began  proclaiming  His  ideals;  but  when  He  did  begin. 
He  put  His  heavenly  Kingdom  ever  at  the  forefront  of 
all  He  taught.  Of  the  few  petitions  which  He  trained 
His  disciples  to  make  to  their  Heavenly  Father,  the  very 
first  was  this : “Thy  Kingdom  come.”  Above  all  other 
quests,  and  especially  above  the  imperative  duty  of  pro- 
viding for  their  creature  needs.  He  placed  this  paramount 
obligation : “Seek  ye  first  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  his 
righteousness ; and  all  these  things  shall  be  added  unto 
you.”  ^ He  indulged  in  no  elaborate  arguments,  but  His 
declarations  came  with  the  authority  of  one  who  did  not 
speculate,  but  really  knew.  His  sayings  are  sharp  and 
clear,  sometimes  uncomfortably  plain,  but  they  are  not 
easy  to  forget.  They  cut  straight  across  the  ideals  of  His 
age,  and  are  none  the  less  opposed  to  many  of  the  cher- 
ished theories  of  our  own  day  of  boasted  enlightenment. 

A new  world  empire 

Who  does  Jesus  say  are  to  be  the  possessors  of  world 
empire?  Will  it  be  the  armed  battalions  of  ambitious 


1 Matt.  vi.  10  and  33. 


WHY  LOOK  TO  JESUS  FOR  LIGHT? 


49 


Rome,  whose  dominion  is  now  so  nearly  complete?  Or, 
will  some  unborn  nation  rise  to  claim  by  might  a uni- 
versal sway?  Or,  shall  the  chosen  people,  in  a simi- 
lar manner  but  under  the  leadership  of  a greater  David, 
fulfil  their  dreams  of  an  earthly  kingdom  whose  realm 
shall  stretch  from  sea  to  sea,  and  whose  capital  shall  be 
the  center  of  power  and  influence  to  which  all  nations 
will  flow  by  a compulsion  as  inevitable  as  that  which 
urges  the  rivers  onward  in  their  course  to  the  mighty 
ocean?  ^ Not  at  all;  none  of  these  shall  gain  the  coveted 
prize.  Only  “the  meek” — that  is,  those  nobly  unselfish — 
“shall  inherit  the  earth.”®  To  such  alone  will  come  the 
blessing  of  God  and  the  ultimate  sovereignty  of  all  the 
earth. 

Then,  who  does  Jesus  say  will  become  the  world’s  great 
leader?  Will  it  be  the  one  who  rules  with  a rod  of  iron? 
Or,  will  it  be  the  statesman  who  best  understands  the 
strength  and  weakness  of  men  and  so  shapes  his  political 
policy  as  to  keep  himself  in  constant  favor  and  in  grow- 
ing power?  Or,  will  it  be  a new  King  on  the  throne  in 
Jerusalem  whose  astuteness  and  vision  will  enable  him  to 
hold  for  Israel  the  monopoly  of  religion  and  righteous- 
ness, and  to  enforce  their  restraints  on  all  her  Gentile 
neighbors?  Not  at  all,  for  Jesus  says:  “The  kings  of  the 
Gentiles  have  lordship  over  them ; and  they  that  have  au- 
thority over  them  are  called  Benefactors.  But  ye  shall  not 
be  so:  but  he  that  is  the  greater  among  you,  let  him 
become  as  the  younger;  and  he  that  is  chief,  as  he  that 
doth  serve.”  * And  in  order  to  make  men  realize  that 
He  speaks  not  in  a theoretical  way,  but  out  of  the  deep- 
est experience  of  His  own  life  He  adds  the  significant 


^ Isaiah  ii.  1-4. 


Matt.  V.  s. 


® Luke  xxii.  25,  26. 


50  THE  CHRISTIAN  EQUIVALENT  OF  WAR 


words:  “For  the  Son  of  man  also  did  not  come  to  be 
waited  upon,  but  to  wait  on  others,  and  to  give  His  life 
as  the  redemption-price  for  a multitude  of  people.”^ 

Universal  values 

Such  teachings  of  Jesus,  however,  cannot  be  adequately- 
interpreted  except  in  the  light  of  His  life-long  struggle 
against  opposing  forces  in  His  daily  environment.  The 
calm  serenity  of  spirit  and  steadfastness  of  purpose  which 
He  always  preserved,  point  to  a fundamental  secret.  He 
moved  about  under  the  commanding  conviction  that  He 
knew  the  will  of  God,  and  was  following  it  in  every 
act  of  His  career.  The  Gospel  of  John  which  lays  such 
persistent  emphasis  on  the  character  of  Jesus  as  unique 
and  wholly  divine,  bases  His  supremacy  and  His  oneness 
with  God  particularly  on  the  fact  of  His  unity  in  purpose 
with  God.  Though  there  is  much  in  this  particular  book 
of  what  we  are  accustomed  to  call  the  mystical,  yet  we 
find  in  it  a never-failing  insistence  on  the  greatest  of 
realities,  the  active  presence  of  God  in  the  world.  It 
sets  forth  Jesus  as  a definite  manifestation  of  this  pres- 
ence. He  is  one  with  God  not  only  in  thought,  but  also  in 
action.  Then,  as  the  Gospel  advances  to  its  majestic  close, 
the  reader  is  reminded  again  and  again  that  God  will 
not  cease  to  work  after  Jesus  has  gone,  but  will  con- 
tinue to  be  ever-present  with  His  people. 

The  spirit  and  teaching  of  Jesus  is  thus  an  exposition 
of  the  purposes  of  His  Father  in  Heaven.  They  involve 
a reversal  of  many  of  the  world’s  estimates  by  empha- 
sizing the  infinite  value  of  each  human  soul,  the  su- 


1 Mark  x.  45  CWeymouth). 


WHY  LOOK  TO  JESUS  FOR  LIGHT? 


51 


periority  of  personal  character  to  anything  that  a man 
may  own,  the  greatness  of  the  power  to  serve  as  con- 
trasted with  the  power  to  rule,  the  supremacy  of  the  law 
of  love.  These  reversals  of  conventional  standards  are 
challenges  to  every  age.  Nor  are  such  valuations  limited 
to  individual  achievement;  they  suggest  a new  appraisal 
of  the  whole  round  of  life. 

It  is  surely  significant  that  Jesus  accepted  in  His  own 
acts  the  validity  of  all  these  estimates.  In  fact,  the  values 
themselves  were  first  tested  in  His  own  experience.  Nor 
did  He  hesitate  to  call  upon  His  own  nation  to  abandon 
the  dreams  of  centuries,  because  they  were  contrary  to 
the  better  purposes  of  God.  That  those  purposes  would 
prevail  was  to  Him,  of  course,  an  absolute  certainty.  It 
was  His  unchanging  faith  that  all  who  work  in  harmony 
with  the  principles  He  laid  down  would  be  channels 
through  which  would  flow  the  supreme  power  of  the  Uni- 
verse. He  went  quietly  to  His  own  death  confident  that 
the  forces  that  were  encompassing  His  end  could  not 
prevent  Him  from  taking  His  full  share  in  accomplishing 
the  Father’s  will. 

All  this  must  give  us  pause.  The  perennial  question 
is.  What  is  the  will  of  God?  No  scholastic  reply  will 
suffice.  It  is  the  most  practical  of  all  practical  questions, 
for  we  must  also  ask : Are  our  actions  in  line  with  the 
eternal  plan,  or  are  we  opposing  our  narrow  human  pur- 
poses to  the  rolling  destiny  of  creation? 


Supplementary  Reading 

A.  W.  Hitchcock,  “The  Psychology  of  Jesus.” 
Jane  Addams,  “Newer  Ideals  of  Peace.” 


52  THE  CHRISTIAN  EQUIVALENT  OF  WAR 


Suggestions  for  Thought  and  Discussion 
ON  Chapter  HI 

Was  the  appeal  to  Jesus  to  be  a military  leader  a real 
temptation? 

To  what  extent  would  the  Jews  have  rallied  to  Jesus’ 
leadership  of  a revolution? 

Did  the  Jewish  national  situation  justify  a revolution? 
How  far  was  the  expectation  of  the  Jews  one  of  a mili- 
tary Messiah? 

What  would  have  been  the  probable  outcome  of  a mili- 
tary revolution  led  by  Jesus? 

Why  did  Jesus  refuse  to  lead  a war  party? 

How  far  is  the  accusation  that  fear  determined  His  de- 
cision justified? 

Did  He  base  His  decision  on  the  thought  that  it  would 
be  wrong  or  on  the  thought  that  it  would  be  impolitic 
to  yield? 

Why  have  we  a right  to  look  to  Jesus  for  light  on  the  war 
problem? 

What  course  did  Jesus  choose  in  place  of  a military 
career? 

Did  His  life  show  that  He  had  the  courage  of  the  con- 
viction expressed  in  His  decision? 

How  far  were  Jesus’  teachings  an  expression  of  His 
choice  in  place  of  a military  career?  (See  Supplement- 
ary Note  XV  on  “Why  did  Jesus  Order  His  Disciples 
to  Buy  Swords?”) 

In  the  light  of  His  own  life  actions,  what  do  His  peace 


WHY  LOOK  TO  JESUS  FOR  LIGHT?  53 


teachings,  especially  those  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount 
(Matt.  V.  vi,  vii),  actually  mean? 

To  what  extent  do  Jesus’  experiences  in  relation  to  the 
war  problem  entitle  Him  to  a hearing? 

What  other  characters  in  history  have  dared  to  decide 
to  adopt  a substitute  for  war  leadership,  and  have  gone 
to  the  length  of  dying  for  their  decision?  Why  should 
we  look  to  Jesus  for  light  on  the  war  question? 


WHAT  IS  THE  MORAL  GOOD  IN  WAR? 


CHAPTER  IV 


WHAT  IS  THE  MORAL  GOOD  IN 
WAR? 


While  it  is  true  that  “Peace  hath  her  victories”  as 
well  as  War,  Peace  has  also  her  devastating  defeats. 
Sometimes  a great  lethargy  of  selfishness  grips  the  na- 
tion whose  borders  are  safe  from  invasion.  Only  war, 
we  are  told,  can  deliver  such  a nation  from  a widespread 
paralysis  of  character.  Its  trumpets  call  men  from  the 
house  of  work,  the  field  of  play,  and  the  den  of  sin,  to 
strenuous  service,  heroic  action,  and  sublime  self-sacrifice. 
Francis  Thompson,  in  celebrating  the  peace  that  followed 
the  South  African  war,  makes  startlingly  vivid  the  shame 
of  a peace  which  only  stimulates  the  greed  for  gain  : 


“And  now,  Lord,  since  Thou  hast  upon  hell’s  floor 
Bound,  like  a snoring  sea,  the  blood-drowsed  bulk  of 
war. 

Shall  we  not  cry,  on  recognizing  knees 
This  is  Thy  peace? 

If  . . . it  be  but  to  lay 

The  heavy  head  down  the  old  heavy  way; 

Having  a space  awakened  and  then  been  bold 
To  break  from  them  that  had  thee  in  the  snare, — 
Resume  the  arms  of  thy  false  Dalila,  Gold, 

Shameful  and  nowise  fair; 

57 


58  THE  CHRISTIAN  EQUIVALENT  OF  WAR 


Forget  thy  sons  who  have  lain  down  . . . 

Forget  their  large  in  thy  contracted  deed, 

And  that  thou  standst  twice-pledged  to  being  great 
For  whom  so  many  children  greatly  bleed, 

Trusting  thy  greatness  with  their  deaths : if  thou  . . . 

See  in  such  deaths  as  these 

But  purchased  pledges  of  unhindered  mart. 

And  hirelings  spent  that  in  thy  ringed  estate 
For  some  space  longer  now 

Thou  mayst  add  gain  to  gain,  and  take  thine  ease, — 
God  has  made  hard  thy  heart ; 

Thou  hast  but  bought  thee  respite,  not  surcease. 

Lord,  this  is  not  Thy  peace  !”  ^ 

No  patriot  would  choose  to  see  his  nation  sunk  in  the 
slough  of  inglorious  ease,  and  if  war  be  the  only  alter- 
native for  degeneracy,  he  would  say  with  no  sign  of 
faltering,  “Then  let  us  have  war !” 


The  antidote  for  degeneracy 

Thus  it  is,  as  Professor  James  has  pointed  out,  that 
the  militarist  feels  justified  in  making  the  claim,  that 
“taking  human  nature  as  a whole  its  wars  are  its  best 
protection  against  its  weaker  and  more  cowardly  self, 
and  that  man  cannot  afford  to  adopt  a peace-economy.”  ^ 

In  the  middle  of  the  nineteenth  century  the  brilliant 
and  keen-sighted  Renan  unhesitatingly  declared  war  to 
be  fundamentally  necessary  to  human  progress.  He  held 
that,  in  the  peaceful  pursuit  of  individual  ends,  the  hu- 
man race  would  degenerate  to  a degree  almost  beyond 
the  power  of  the  imagination  to  picture,  if  the  foolish- 
ness, negligence,  idleness,  and  shortsightedness  of  states 
did  not  involve  their  occasional  collision.  Like  him, 

1 Francis  Thompson,  Peace  in  “Poems,”  Vol.  ii.  p.  154. 

® William  James,  “Memories  and  Studies,”  p.  276. 


WHAT  IS  THE  MORAL  GOOD  IN  WAR?  59 


many  have  looked  upon  war  as  the  sting  which  prevents 
a country  from  going  to  sleep,  and  have  prophesied  that 
the  day  of  universal  peace  will  be  the  day  of  humanity’s 
greatest  peril/ 

A promoter  of  culture 

Though  Ruskin  admits,  “Yet  truly,  if  it  might  be,  I for 
one  would  fain  join  in  the  cadence  of  hammer-strokes 
that  should  beat  swords  into  ploughshares” ; ““  still  his 
reading  of  history  made  clear  to  his  own  mind  that  the 
kind  of  character  which  produces  art  is  developed  only 
in  war.  “All  the  pure  and  noble  arts  of  peace  are  founded 
on  war;  no  great  art  ever  yet  rose  on  earth,  but  among 
a nation  of  soldiers.  There  is  no  art  among  a shepherd 
people,  if  it  remains  at  peace.  There  is  no  art  among 
an  agricultural  people,  if  it  remains  at  peace.  Commerce 
is  barely  consistent  with  fine  art;  but  cannot  produce  it. 
Manufacture  not  only  is  unable  to  produce  it,  but  in- 
variably destroys  whatever  seeds  of  it  exist.  There  is 
no  great  art  possible  but  that  which  is  based  on  battle. 
. . . The  common  notion  that  peace  and  the  virtues 
of  civil  life  flourished  together,  I found  to  be  wholly 
untenable.  Peace  and  the  vices  of  civil  life  only  flourish 
together.  We  talk  of  peace  and  learning,  of  peace  and 
plenty,  of  peace  and  civilization;  but  I found  that  those 
were  not  the  words  which  the  Muse  of  History  coupled 
together;  that,  on  her  lips,  the  words  were — peace  and 
sensuality — peace  and  selfishness — peace  and  death.  I 
found,  in  brief,  that  all  great  nations  learned  their  truth 
of  word,  and  strength  of  thought,  in  war ; that  they  were 


^Ernest  Renan,  “La  Reforme  Intellectuelle  et  Morale,*’  p.  m. 
^John  Ruskin,  “Crown  of  Wild  Olive,”  Sec.  130. 


6o  THE  CHRISTIAN  EQUIVALENT  OF  WAR 


nourished  in  war,  and  wasted  by  peace;  taught  by  war, 
and  deceived  by  peace;  trained  by  war,  and  betrayed  by 
peace — in  a word,  that  they  were  born  in  war,  and  ex- 
pired in  peace.”  ^ 

A test  of  national  character 

There  are  many  who  carry  this  general  thesis  further 
and  maintain  that  war  is  the  supreme  test  of  national 
character.  As  military  efficiency  is  founded,  they  say,  on 
uprightness  of  character,  it  follows  that  the  nation  most 
efficient  as  a fighter  is  possessed  of  the  highest  moral 
character.  Furthermore,  as  the  most  efficient  nation  is 
sure  to  be  victorious,  the  victorious  nation  is,  therefore, 
the  nation  of  highest  morality.  Thus  war  becomes  the 
supreme  test  of  national  worth,  and  “wars  in  our  time 
are  vast  natural  forces,  having  their  roots  far  down  in 
national  character.”  “ 

This  position  is  taken,  for  instance,  by  Baron  von 
Stengel:  “War  has  more  often  facilitated  than  hindered 
progress.  Athens  and  Rome,  not  only  in  spite  of,  but  just 
because  of  their  many  wars,  rose  to  the  zenith  of  civili- 
zation. Great  states  like  Germany  and  Italy  are  welded 
into  nationalities  only  through  blood  and  iron.  Storm 
purifies  the  air  and  destroys  the  frail  trees,  leaving  the 
sturdy  oaks  standing.  War  is  the  test  of  a nation’s  politi- 
cal, physical,  and  intellectual  worth.  The  State  in  which 
there  is  much  that  is  rotten  may  vegetate  for  a while  in 
peace,  but  in  war  its  weakness  is  revealed.”® 


^ John  Ruskin,  “Crown  of  Wild  Olive,”  Secs.  86  and  94. 

2 See  article  in  The  Nineteenth  Century  for  February,  1899,  by  N.  F. 
Wyatt,  entitled  “War  as  the  Supreme  Test  of  National  Value.” 

“ Professor  Baron  Karl  von  Stengel,  in  chapter  on  The  Significance 
of  War  for  the  Development  of  Humanity,  in  “Weldstadt  und  Friedens- 
problem.” 


WHAT  IS  THE  MORAL  GOOD  IN  WAR?  6i 


Ex-President  Roosevelt  has  on  various  occasions  re- 
iterated his  conviction,  “that  in  this  world  the  nation  that 
has  trained  itself  to  a career  of  unwarlike  and  isolated 
ease,  is  bound,  in  the  end,  to  go  down  before  the  other 
nations  which  have  not  lost  the  manly  and  adventurous 
qualities.”  ^ 

Nietzsche  has  boldly  declared  his  philosophy  of  war  as 
follows : “It  is  mere  illusion  and  pretty  sentiment  to 
expect  much  (even  anything  at  all)  from  mankind  if  it 
forgets  how  to  make  war.  As  yet  no  means  are  known 
which  call  so  much  into  action  as  a great  war,  that  rough 
energy  born  of  the  camp,  that  deep  impersonality  born 
of  hatred,  that  conscience  born  of  murder  and  cold-blood- 
edness, that  fervor  born  of  effort  in  the  annihilation  of 
the  enemy,  that  proud  indifference  to  loss,  to  one’s  own 
existence,  to  that  of  one’s  fellows,  to  that  earthquake- 
like soul-shaking  which  a people  needs  when  it  is  losing 
its  vitality.”^ 

The  fascination  of  war 

War  unquestionably  casts  a spell  over  the  human  race. 
It  appeals  to  deep-seated  human  instincts.  The  milder 
heroes  of  peace  are  completely  overshadowed  by  the 
great  warriors.  We  have  read  our  history  in  the  light  of 
a philosophy  of  force.  Our  text-books  present  a series  of 
conflicts,  and  we  seem  to  require  a war  to  mark  every 
turning  point  in  human  progress.  James  has  reminded 
us,  “Modern  man  inherits  all  the  innate  pugnacity  and 
all  the  love  of  glory  of  his  ancestors.  Showing  war’s 
irrationality  and  horror  is  of  no  effect  upon  him.  The 

1 Theodore  Roosevelt,  “The  Strenuous  Life,”  p.  6. 

® Quoted  in  article  on  Peace,  in  “Encyclopedia  Britannica,”  nth  edi- 
tion, from  “Menschliches  Altzumenschliches,”  No.  477. 


62  THE  CHRISTIAN  EQUIVALENT  OF  WAR 


horrors  make  the  fascination.  War  is  the  strong  life;^ 
it  is  life  in  extremis;  war-taxes  are  the  only  ones  men 
never  hesitate  to  pay,  as  the  budgets  of  all  nations  show 
us.”  ^ What  is  it  which  has  produced  all  this  fascination? 
Does  it  furnish  us  a basis  on  which  intelligently  to  es- 
timate the  good  which  war  is  said  to  produce? 

A part  of  the  fascination  of  war  is  the  enthusiasm  it 
arouses.  As  in  athletics,  a common  desire  is  raised  to 
incandescence  by  a supreme  concentration  of  effort 
toward  its  realization.  Another  element  of  fascination 
is  the  way  in  which  war  calls  out  a man’s  fullest  powers. 
The  gifts  of  foresight  and  daring,  the  acquirements  of 
skill  and  strategy,  the  instinct  for  administration  or  ex- 
ecution, the  qualities  of  thoroughness  and  decision,  the 
capacity  for  assuming  responsibility  or  for  meeting  an 
unexpected  situation,  and  the  quieter  graces  of  patience 
and  loyalty,  all  appear  to  come  to  fruition  in  war — and 
nothing  seems  so  fully  to  command  a man’s  devotion  as 
the  chance  to  use  his  powers. 

The  virtues  classified 

Let  us  attempt  to  set  down  a plain  list  of  the  virtues 
brought  out  by  war.  The  strictly  individual  virtues  may 
be  compactly  grouped  under  seven  heads  : ( i ) Virility,  in- 
volving a high  degree  of  activity,  both  physical  and 
mental;  (2)  Self-sacrifice,  brought  out  both  in  subordi- 
nation to  authority  and  in  sacrifice  for  the  common  cause ; 

(3)  Endurance,  called  forth  through  labor  and  pain; 

(4)  Courage,  in  the  face  of  difficulty  and  peril;  (5) 
Resourcefulness,  in  the  presence  of  perplexing  and  un- 


1 William  James,  “Memories  and  Studies,”  p.  269. 


WHAT  IS  THE  MORAL  GOOD  IN  WAR?  63 


expected  conditions;  (6)  Decision  of  character;  (7) 
Devotion  both  to  present  duty  and  to  ultimate  ideals. 

Other  evident  virtues  promoted  by  war  are : ( i ) Co- 
operation; (2)  Cohesiveness;  (3)  Recognition  of  com- 
mon good  as  paramount  to  individual  interest;  (4)  Loy- 
alty to  social  organization;  (5)  Sympathy  in  sorrow 
and  suffering;  (6)  Simplicity  and  frugality  of  life. 

The  case  against  peace 

The  case  of  war  as  a means  of  discipline  against  peace 
as  a source  of  enervation  is  impressively  put,  and  many 
of  its  arguments  are  addressed  to  our  finer  instincts. 
But  it  rests  heavily  on  certain  assumptions  which  are 
plainly  perilous. 

It  is  assumed  that  war  brings  a sure  relief  to  the  de- 
bilitations of  peace.  We  are  bidden  to  view  the  sudden 
transformation  of  the  coward  into  a hero,  and  the  evil 
man  into  one  who  is  pure  and  virtuous.  War,  the  great 
magician,  is  supposed  to  create  virile  qualities  out  of 
nothing.  In  a previous  chapter  we  have  tried  to  show 
the  precariousness  of  this  assumption.^  History  does 
not  bear  it  out.  Moreover,  those  who  press  the  argu- 
ment fail  to  make  mention  of  the  reverse  process  by 
which  men  of  poise  and  character  are  impelled,  in  the 
heat  of  the  conflict,  to  give  way  to  passions  which  they 
would  blush  to  own. 

It  is  also  assumed  that  because  certain  qualities  have 
in  the  past  been  developed  through  war,  therefore,  war 
alone  can  develop  those  same  qualities  in  the  future. 
We  must  acknowledge  freely  that  the  advocates  of  mili- 
tarism are  “right  in  affirming  and  reaffirming  that  the 


^ See  Chapter  I. 


64  THp  CHRISTIAN  EQUIVALENT  OF  WAR 

martial  virtues,  although  originally  gained  by  the  race 
through  war,  are  absolute  and  permanent  human  goods.”  ’■ 
But  are  we  compelled  to  add  that  they  can  be  kept  only 
by  violence?  Is  it  true  that  if  we  do  not  display  our 
heroism  and  loyalty  by  taking  up  arms,  there  is  nothing 
left  for  us  but  a lapse  into  the  pit  of  selfish  degeneracy? 

If  the  qualities  developed  in  war  could  be  developed 
by  no  other  means,  every  conscientious  statesman  would 
regard  the  condition  of  peace  with  horror  and  alarm, 
and  would  certainly  set  about  arranging  a series  of  wars, 
lest  his  people  should  be  lost  to  light  and  honor.  Here 
we  are  at  the  heart  of  our  problem.  While  the  virtues 
developed  in  war  are  not  the  only  virtues  of  mankind, 
they  are  necessary  to  a noble  life.  Is  there  no  other 
means  by  which  they  may  be  developed? 

The  demands  of  maturity 

If  in  studying  this  question  we  should  become  convinced 
that  the  courses  of  action  which  have  been  followed 
in  the  past  would  now  be  wrong  for  us,  we  are  not 
thereby  compelled  to  pass  wholesale  condemnation  on 
men  who  have  lived  before  us.  Developing  experience 
should  mean  a developing  conscience  based  on  broader 
judgments,  and  we  must  march  by  our  present  light  with- 
out denouncing  the  illumination  of  other  ages.  With 
characteristic  discrimination  Jane  Addams  has  pointed  out 
that  “in  the  curious  period  of  accommodation  in  which 
we  live,  it  is  possible  for  old  habits  and  new  compunc- 
tions to  be  equally  powerful,  and  it  is  almost  a matter 
of  pride  with  us  that  we  neither  break  with  the  old 
nor  yield  to  the  new.  We  call  this  attitude  tolerance. 


1 William  James,  “Memories  and  Studies,”  p.  288. 


WHAT  IS  THE  MORAL  GOOD  IN  WAR?  65 


whereas  it  is  often  mere  confusion  of  mind.  . . . We 

may  admire  much  that  is  admirable  in  this  past  life  of 
courageous  warfare,  while  at  the  same  time  we  accord 
it  no  right,  to  dominate  the  present,  which  has  travelled 
out  of  its"  reach  into  a land  of  new  desires.  We  may 
admit  that  the  experiences  of  war  have  equipped  the 
men  of  the  present  with  pluck  and  energy,  but  to  insist 
upon  the  self-same  expression  for  that  pluck  and  energy 
would  be  as  stupid  a mistake  as  if  we  would  relegate  the 
full-grown  citizen,  responding  to  many  claims  and  de- 
mands upon  his  powers,  to  the  school-yard  fights  of  his 
boyhood,  or  to  the  college  contests  of  his  cruder  youth. 
The  little  lad  who  stoutly  defends  himself  on  the  school- 
ground  may  be  worthy  of  much  admiration,  but  if  we  find 
him,  a dozen  years  later,  the  bullying  leader  of  a street- 
gang  who  bases  his  prestige  on  the  fact  that  ‘no  one  can 
whip  him,’  our  admiration  cools  amazingly,  and  we  say 
that  the  carrying  over  of  those  puerile  instincts  into 
manhood  shows  arrested  development  which  is  mainly  re- 
sponsible for  filling  our  prisons.”  ^ 

All  that  is  asked  is  that  we  should  face  the  future 
unprejudiced. 

Moral  equivalent  of  war 

Present-day  facts  are  against  the  assumption  that 
we  must  have  war  before  we  can  have  the  martial  virtues. 
Most  nations  enter  war  with  many  misgivings.  No  states- 
man, however  belligerent,  denies  the  frightful  price  which 
must  be  paid,  if  virtues  are  to  be  bought  in  this  way. 
It  is  our  duty  to  find,  if  possible,  some  other  way,  or,  as 
Professor  James  suggests,  a moral  equivalent  of  war, 

’^Jane  Addams,  “Newer  Ideals  of  Peace,”  pp.  209-21 1. 


66  THE  CHRISTIAN  EQUIVALENT  OF  WAR 


analogous  to  the  mechanical  equivalent  of  heat.  Some 
tell  us  that  the  nearest  approach  to  this  equivalent  is 
to  be  found  in  preparing  for  war.  On  cruisers  and  battle- 
ships, in  camp  and  barracks,  in  target  practise  and  ma- 
neuvers, and  by  sham  battles  and  mock  campaigns  they 
would  develop  in  our  young  manhood  many  of  the  splen- 
did qualities  brought  out  by  the  more  severe  discipline 
of  actual  war.  But  the  question  inevitably  arises.  Can- 
not this  end  be  attained  without  such  preparation  for 
war  as  makes  war  itself  almost  inevitable?  Must  mil- 
lions of  the  strongest  be  maimed  or  slain,  and  must  all 
suffer  the  attendant  evils  of  war  in  order  that  some  may 
experience  certain  accompanying  advantages?  Is  there 
no  simpler  and  less  expensive  way  to  train  young  men  to 
be  prompt  and  obedient,  faithful  and  thorough,  gallant 
and  courageous?  An  attempt  to  answer  these  questions 
is  found  in  the  modern  enterprises  to  improve  play- 
grounds, enlarge  the  facilities  for  physical  training,  purify 
sport,  and  popularize  chivalry.  A most  fascinating  illus- 
tration is  furnished  by  the  Boy  Scout  movement,  which 
is  unquestionably  proving  a useful  means  for  promoting 
the  finer  martial  virtues  among  the  youth  of  the  world, 
while  giving  them  ideals  of  training  and  service  as  at- 
tractive as  the  crude  ideals  of  war. 

Conscription  of  labor 

The  suggestion  which  Professor  James  himself  made 
was  that  instead  of  a military  conscription  there  be  a 
conscription  of  labor,  under  the  control  of  the  nation. 
The  military  ideals  of  hardihood  and  discipline  would  be 
wrought  into  the  growing  fiber  of  the  people.  No  young 
man  could  then  come  into  the  responsibilities  of  mature 


WHAT  IS  THE  MORAL  GOOD  IN  WAR?  67 


life  without  first  having  learned  through  experience  what 
are  his  relations  to  the  globe  on  which  he  lives.  Thus, 
James  felt,  all  would  get  the  childishness  knocked  out  of 
them  and  would  “come  back  into  society  with  healthier 
sympathies  and  soberer  ideas.  They  would  have  paid 
their  blood-tax,  done  their  own  part  in  the  immemorial 
human  warfare  against  nature;  they  would  tread  the  earth 
more  proudly,  the  women  would  value  them  more  highly, 
they  would  be  better  fathers  and  teachers  of  the  fol- 
lowing generation.”  ^ 

Work  the  great  educator 

Canon  Grane  has  rendered  a useful  service  in  calling 
attention  to  the  truth  that  “Labor  is  the  great  Con- 
queror. Not  War,  but  Work,  is  the  great  Educator;  and 
the  essential  watchword  of  all  permanent  advance.  When 
the  militarist  tells  us  that  Peace  on  earth  is  a mere 
dream,  and  ‘not  even  a beautiful  dream;’  when  he  sol- 
emnly warns  us  that  ‘without  War  the  world  would  sink 
in  a morass  of  materialism;’  he  appears  to  see  no  choice 
open  between  perpetuation  of  murder  on  a grand  scale, 
and  a state  of  demoralizing  lethargy.  But  the  world  is 
now  too  old  to  impale  itself  on  the  horns  of  this  im- 
aginary dilemma.  The  world  is  becoming  aware  that 
‘Peace  hath  her  victories,  not  less  renowned  than  War’ 
and  infinitely  more  productive.  Proof  is  everywhere 
that  it  is  not  the  men  that  give  up  fighting,  who  lose 
stamina  and  virility ; but  the  men  who  give  up  work.  The 
most  ‘unfit’  are  they  who  least  cooperate  in  the  great 
struggle  of  their  race  against  whatever  in  its  environ- 
ment obstructs  real  progress  and  development.  And  of 


*•  William  James,  “Memories  and  Studies,”  p.  291. 


68  THE  CHRISTIAN  EQUIVALENT  OF  WAR 


all  such  obstacles  War  is  the  greatest,  as  may  at  any  time 
be  clearly  seen  from  the  condition  of  those  peoples  who 
chiefly  occupy  their  time  in  conflict,  either  with  their 
neighbors  or  among  themselves.  And  it  is  these,  and  not 
the  prosperous,  hard-working,  peace-loving  populations, 
who  reap  the  fruit  of  their  transgression  of  primordial 
Law.”  ^ 

The  impulse  of  a cause 

The  really  deadening  influence  in  life  is  selfishness.  The 
claim  made  in  behalf  of  war  is  that  it  draws  men  away 
from  just  this  condition  of  heart  and  mind.  A great  army 
represents  a vast  number  of  human  wills  putting  aside 
personal  interests  for  the  common  good.  The  cause 
takes  precedence  over  everything  else.  This  is  what 
Francis  Thompson  evidently  had  in  mind  when  he  ex- 
pressed the  fear  that  many  a man  in  doing  his  “con- 
tracted deed”  would  forget  the  large  sacrifice  made  by 
others  in  the  interest  of  all. 

But  there  are  other  causes  in  life  than  those  for  which 
war  is  waged.  All  the  best  enterprises  of  men  call  for 
the  great  renunciation — the  giving  up  of  individual  pref- 
erences and  aims  in  the  interest  of  what  is  big  and  en- 
nobling. Men  and  women  may  ally  themselves  with 
causes  which  involve,  not  wholesale  .destruction,  but  a 
more  perfect  cooperation  in  life.  The  easy  generalization 
that  industrial  enterprises  are  developers  of  greed  and 
softness  finds  an  emphatic  denial  in  the  career  of  men  who 
are  trying  to  make  their  business  serve  the  community 
and  the  world.  The  very  fact  that  such  are  as  yet  too 
few  in  number  emphasizes  the  demand  for  every  quality 

1 William  Leighton  Grane,  “The  Passing  of  War,”  pp.  6i,  62, 


WHAT  IS  THE  MORAL  GOOD  IN  WAR?  69 


brought  out  in  war.  Professional  men  need  courage 
to  make  their  sacrifices,  and  all  the  larger  movements 
call  for  heroic  leaders  and  stalwart  followers.  Even 
the  cause  of  peace  has  its  martyrs.  Each  one  of  these 
may  have  to  bear  a part  many  times  harder  than  to  face 
the  machine-gun  or  be  exposed  to  shrapnel. 


A permanent  cure 

Peace,  it  is  true,  has  still  to  make  its  case.  “Peace 
without  honor”  might  easily  become  the  chronic  state  of 
civilization.  We  have  looked  in  various  directions  for  a 
possible  “moral  equivalent  of  war.”  Our  present  objec- 
tive, however,  lies  far  deeper  than  any  purely  moral 
equivalent.  No  superficial  remedies  will  suffice.  Men’s 
hearts  at  this  time  are  torn  with  grief  and  apprehension ; 
in  agony  they  are  asking  for  a permanent  cure.  They  are 
not  content  to  feel  that  the  stability  of  civilization  is 
guaranteed  by  nothing  surer  than  an  appeal  to  arms.  Nor 
are  they  willing  to  contemplate  a future  in  which  the 
world  will  ever  be  kept  in  dread  anticipation  of  an  ulti- 
mate harvest  of  death  and  destruction.  Many  are  asking, 
Is  there  nowhere  a power  to  prevent  such  devastation 
and  carnage  as  wq  are  witnessing  today? 


Supplementary  Reading 

William  James,  Chapter  on  The  Moral  Equivalent  of 
War  in  “Memories  and  Studies.” 

John  Ruskin,  “Crown  of  Wild  Olive.” 


70  THE  CHRISTIAN  EQUIVALENT  OF  WAR 


Suggestions  for  Thought  and  Discussion 
ON  Chapter  IV 

What  are  the  moral  dangers  which  face  a peaceful 
country? 

Has  the  comparative  peace  of  the  United  States  during 
the  last  fifty  years  developed  national  qualities  which 
make  that  peace  inglorious? 

Why  do  selfish  tendencies  flourish  in  time  of  peace? 
How  far  do  you  think  Ruskin  correct  in  his  estimate  of 
the  effect  of  war  upon  culture  and  the  fine  arts?  (See 
Supplementary  Note  XIV  on  “China  and  the  Career  of 
Ignoble  Ease.”) 

Which  do  you  consider  the  greater  test  of  national  char- 
acter— war  or  peace?  Why? 

How  far  is  it  true  in  modern  warfare  that  the  “nation 
of  highest  morality”  wins?  That  the  “fittest”  survive? 
(See  Supplementary  Note  XI  on  “War  and  the  Survival 
of  the  Fittest”;  and  Note  XH  on  “War  and  National 
Solidarity.”) 

What  constitutes  the  fascination  of  war  ? What  activi- 
ties of  peace  have  a similar  fascination? 

What  are  the  virtues  developed  by  war? 

Are  the  virtues  classified  in  the  chapter  the  most  de- 
sirable ? 

To  what  extent  is  a man  possessing  these  virtues  fully 
equipped  for  life? 

What  are  some  of  the  possible  moral  equivalents  for  war? 

Can  anything  else  than  war  develop  the  moral  qualities 
growing  out  of  war? 


WHAT  IS  THE  MORAL  GOOD  IN  WAR?  71 


How  far  can  war  be  depended  upon  to  eradicate  the 
debilitating  effects  of  peace? 

To  what  extent  will  “conscription  of  work”  develop  the 
same  qualities  as  “conscription  of  war”?  What  are  its 
disadvantages  ? 

What  other  causes  develop  the  same  qualities  as  the 
war  cause?  To  what  extent  are  they  equally  potent? 

Is  a permanent  cure  for  war  possible? 


HAS  JESUS  A SOCIAL  EQUIVALENT  OF 
WAR? 


% 

i 


CHAPTER  V 


HAS  JESUS  A SOCIAL  EQUIVALENT 
OF  WAR? 

To  many  the  present  calamitous  conflict  seems  to  sig- 
nify the  breakdown  of  Christianity.  That  there  has  been 
a collapse  of  much  that  was  called  “Christian”  is  to  be 
freely  acknowledged.  Should  not  the  professed  follow- 
ers of  Jesus,  both  as  individuals  and  as  corporate  bodies, 
go  further  and  confess  that  this  collapse  has  been,  at 
least  in  part,  due  to  their  failure  to  translate  fully  enough 
into  the  life  of  society  the  spirit  of  their  Master?  After 
such  confession  has  been  made  there  will  remain  with 
a large  number  an  abiding  conviction  that  if  the  prin- 
ciples of  Jesus  were  only  better  understood  and  more 
completely  applied,  the  nations  would  discover  other  ways 
in  which  to  settle  their  disputes,  and  men  would  find 
other  methods  of  securing  the  discipline  which  war 
brings. 

The  principles  of  Jesus  have  never  yet  been  given  a 
controlling  place  in  determining  the  policies  of  nations. 
Their  applicability  to  every  other  relationship  of  life  hav- 
ing been  proved,  it  is  to  be  expected  that  we  shall  in  some 
way  find  them  also  adapted  to  international  relations.  Let 
us  now  seek  to  discover  whether  Jesus  offers  any  way  by 
which  the  virtues  developed  in  war  can  be  brought  to  an 

75 


76  THE  CHRISTIAN  EQUIVALENT  OF  WAR 


even  fuller  perfection  by  peaceful  and  more  spiritual 
processes. 

Jesus  and  the  great  social  movement  of  the  Jews 

When  Jesus  confronted  the  great  question  of  His 
career,  He  knew  that  He  was  dealing  with  a movement 
recognized  by  the  people  as  social.  The  Messianic  hope, 
the  coming  of  the  Kingdom  of  God,  was  no  vague  phil- 
osophy; it  was  a “part  of  a national  spirit.”  Social 
conceptions  were  not  strange  to  the  Hebrew.  The  nation 
had  long  since  made  with  God  a national  covenant.  Her 
great  prophets  had  demanded  national  repentance,  and 
everyone  agreed  in  looking  for  a corporate  triumph  for 
the  chosen  people.  Even  the  success  of  the  Messiah  seems 
to  have  been  considered  secondary  to  the  success  of  the 
Kingdom  of  God.^ 

It  was  the  evident  desire  of  Jesus  to  reshape  this  con- 
fused social  movement  and  direct  it  to  the  accomplish- 
ment of  the  purpose  of  God.  Otherwise  there  would 
have  been  no  value  in  His  assuming  the  title  of  the  Mes- 
siah. The  Gospels  show  clearly  that  His  message  made 
more  than  a personal  appeal  to  men ; it  held  up  before 
the  eyes  of  the  people  a great  national  destiny. 

At  the  very  beginning,  however.  He  had  taken  His 
stand  against  the  military  ideal ; His  Kingdom  was 
founded  in  distinct  opposition  to  the  kingdom  of  violence 
which  many  Galilean  patriots  had  in  mind.  It  soon  came 
into  quite  as  distinct  opposition  to  the  ideals  of  the  Phari- 
sees. Their  narrow  interpretations  of  religious  zeal  were 
characterized  by  Him  in  perfectly  plain  language  on  sev- 


^ Cf.  Shailer  Mathews,  “History  of  New  Testament  Times  in  Pales- 
tine,” Chapter  xiv. 


A SOCIAL  EQUIVALENT  FOR  WAR 


77 


eral  notable  occasions.  Two  powerful  lines  of  opposi- 
tion, therefore,  confronted  Him,  and  these  two  helped  to 
compass  His  final  end. 

An  antidote  for  war 

Thus  we  see  in  Jesus,  as  He  sends  out  His  disciples  to 
preach  the  Gospel  of  the  Kingdom,  a real  social  reformer 
endeavoring  to  turn  a great  national  hope  into  a new 
course,  that  its  full  power  might  be  available  for  the 
salvation  of  the  world.  In  announcing  this  campaign 
Jesus  meant  it  to  be,  not  an  alternative,  but  a substitute 
for  war.  By  it  He  would  fulfil  the  prophetic  song  of 
the  angels  who  announced  His  birth  to  be  the  bring- 
ing of  “peace  on  earth.”  ^ He  proposed,  in  fact,  a new 
corporate  ideal  for  His  people,  and  for  all  the  world. 
The  new  Kingdom  He  came  to  establish  was  to  bring 
men  into  a truer  relationship  with  their  Heavenly  Father, 
and  a closer  and  more  brotherly  relationship  with  each 
other.  Thus  the  national  mission  was  conceived  as  a 
great  opportunity  for  social  service. 

The  Kingdom,  according  to  Jesus,  stands  in  sharp 
contrast  with  many  of  our  national  ideals  today.  Was  it 
in  better  accord  with  the  national  ideals  of  His  own  day? 
Early  in  His  career  He  set  forth  the  ideals  of  His  King- 
dom. Turning  to  one  of  Isaiah’s  visions  of  Messiah’s 
character  He  read  one  day  in  the  hearing  of  His  own 
family  and  fellow-townsmen  that  beautiful  portrayal  of 
the  God-sent  messenger  who  would  bring  good  news 
to  the  poor,  release  to  the  captives,  sight  to  the  blind, 
and  liberty  to  the  oppressed.  There  must  have  been 
something  unusual  in  His  manner  or  in  the  tone  of  His 


^ Luke  ii.  14. 


78  THE  CHRISTIAN  EQUIVALENT  OF  WAR 


voice,  for  as  He  closed  the  book  “the  eyes  of  all  in  the 
synagogue  were  fastened  on  Him”  and  He  proceeded  to 
show  how  in  Himself  this  vision  was  now  finding  a com- 
plete fulfilment/  He  made  it  evident  that  He  had  come  to 
inaugurate  no  narrow  program  of  religious  propaganda. 
The  Jewish  religion  had  become  all  but  petrified  by  its 
external  forms.  Its  leaders  had  failed  to  appreciate  God’s 
passion  for  the  fruits  of  religion.  They  had  yet  to  learn 
how  disgusting  were  all  their  holy  sacrifices  when  un- 
accompanied by  the  perfume  of  mercy.* *  They  had  failed, 
in  other  words,  to  apply  the  principles  of  their  faith  to 
their  daily  conduct.  The  campaign  of  the  Kingdom  would 
introduce  into  society  a force  with  a vitalizing  power 
sufficient  to  perform  the  miracle  of  miracles — the  trans- 
formation of  selfish  men  into  men  of  love.  And  He  con- 
templated giving  this  force  right  of  way  in  every  re- 
lationship in  the  life  of  men. 

The  underlying  principle 

The  vitalizing  force  was  to  be  the  law  of  love;  it  was 
to  be  much  more  than  a law  of  reciprocity.  “If  ye  love 
them  that  love  you,  what  thank  have  ye?”  He  asked; 
“for  even  sinners  love  those  that  love  them.  And  if  ye 
do  good  to  them  that  do  good  to  you,  what  thank  have 
ye?  for  even  sinners  do  the  same.”*  Jesus  broke  com- 
pletely away  from  the  accepted  interpretation  of  the  word 
“neighbor”  which  Jewish  casuistry  had  devised,  by  mak- 
ing it  plain  that  in  His  mind  it  included  even  the  un- 
congenial and  despised  members  of  society.*  In  fact, 
these  were  the  very  ones  who  to  His  mind  most  needed 

^ Luke  iv.  18-21.  ® Hosea  vi.  6;  cf.  Matt.  xii.  7. 

^ Luke  vi.  32,  33. 

* Matt.  ix.  10-12;  Luke  x.  29-37;  John  iv.  27,  viii.  9-n. 


A SOCIAL  EQUIVALENT  FOR  WAR 


79 


the  ministries  of  love/  The  application  of  His  law,  there- 
fore, knows  no  limitations  of  race,  color,  or  social  rank. 
It  includes  men  of  every  stage  of  advancement  in  civili- 
zation and  culture,  of  every  avocation  and  employment,  of 
every  degree  of  influence,  and  of  every  grade  of  char- 
acter. It  contemplates  fusing  these  diverse  elements  by 
a common  passion  and  the  comradeship  of  a common 
cause  into  an  ever-expanding  and  increasingly  irresistible 
union,  whose  combined  power  will  overcome  all  that  hin- 
ders the  complete  establishment  of  His  Kingdom. 

Invincible  goodwill 

All  this  Jesus  saw  as  a great  opportunity,  at  first  for 
His  nation,  and  then  for  a faithful  body  of  men  to  be 
gradually  gathered  out  of  all  the  nations.  He  saw  it 
not  merely  as  a struggle  of  individuals  against  adverse 
circumstances,  but  as  a united  adventure  of  a large  body 
of  strong  and  resolute  souls.  He  gave  His  closest  com- 
panions to  understand  that  the  sway  of  this  Kingdom 
would  some  day  be  as  universally  recognized  as  the  light- 
ning’s flash,  which  “cometh  forth  from  the  east,  and  is 
seen  even  unto  the  west.”  “ 

Suppose  the  Jewish  people  had  accepted  the  vocation  to 
which  Jesus  had  called  them  and  taken  on  themselves 
the  task  of  practising  as  a nation  a policy  of  invincible 
goodwill?  By  charity  of  spirit  and  purity  of  life  they 
might  have  won  the  Roman  and  convinced  the  Greek; 
their  very  unselfishness  would  have  shamed  the  Sad- 
ducee  and  the  Herodian.  For  all  ages  they  would  have 
stood  as  the  first  example  of  a people  wholly  dedicated  to 
the  service  of  mankind.  Their  contribution  to  the  world 


* Mark  ii.  17. 


® Matt.  xxiv.  27. 


8o  THE  CHRISTIAN  EQUIVALENT  OF  WAR 


up  to  this  point  was  only  a part  of  the  truth.  They  had 
shown  the  power  of  the  monotheistic  idea  in  developing 
righteousness.  What  if  they  had  risen  to  their  oppor- 
tunity to  demonstrate  to  all  nations  the  fuller  ideal,  not 
only  of  one  God,  but  of  a Father  God,  of  whom  all  men 
are  sons,  and  in  whom  all  men  are  brothers?  Even  if 
the  nation  had  gone  down,  as  Jesus  did,  under  the  pres- 
sure of  hate,  would  the  sacrifice  have  been  unavailing? 

The  new  movement 

The  Jewish  people  declined  to  undertake  such  a mis- 
sion. Jesus  was  then  driven  to  turn  to  a body  of  faith- 
ful disciples,  and  His  later  ministry  was  given  up  to 
the  training  of  this  little  band  who  were  to  form  the 
nucleus  of  the  new  Kingdom.  For  a long  time  they  could 
not  grasp  His  larger  ideal.  They  too  were  patriotic 
Jews  and  thought  of  their  nation  and  its  great  hopes  in 
terms  of  material  prosperity.  They  evidently  understood 
but  imperfectly  their  Master’s  deliberate  sacrifice,  and 
at  His  death  their  visions  faded.  But  when  they  were 
convinced  that  He  was  alive,  see  their  eager  hopes  spring 
up  again  as  they  ask  the  question:  “Dost  thou  at  this 
time  restore  the  kingdom  to  Israel  ?”  ^ The  answer  is  a 
call  to  service. 

Afterward  they  came  to  learn  the  nature  of  the  King- 
dom, they  came  to  know  its  spiritual  significance  and 
to  be  convinced  of  the  secondary  place  of  material  pos- 
sessions. But,  at  the  same  time,  they  did  not  lose  their 
sense  of  the  corporate  ideal.  They  translated  their  con- 
ception of  Jesus’  message  into  social  terms  of  great  in- 
timacy. Israel’s  sense  of  mission  is  appropriated  by  the 


^ Acts  i.  6. 


A SOCIAL  EQUIVALENT  FOR  WAR 


8i 


Apostles  for  the  Christian  community.  Paul  continually 
refers  to  his  fellow-Christians  as  part  of  a new  divine 
race — the  Israel  of  God;* *  and  Peter  says:  “But  ye  are 
an  elect  race,  ...  a holy  nation,  a people  for  God’s 
own  possession.”  ” The  thirteenth  chapter  of  First  Corin- 
thians and  the  Apostle  James’  summary  of  true  religion 
as  that  which  leads  a man  to  visit  “the  fatherless  and 
widows  in  their  affliction,”  ® are  eternal  witnesses  to  the 
writers’  social  habit  of  mind.  Down  through  the  cen- 
turies there  have  been  many  who  have  seen  more  or  less 
clearly  the  vision  of  the  larger  Kingdom  of  God. 

It  is  an  encouraging  sign  that  Christians  today  seem 
to  be  thinking  of  this  Kingdom  more  and  more  as  a new 
social  order,  a Kingdom  of  persons,  not  alone  the  ab- 
stract rule  of  God  in  the  human  heart.  May  it  not  be 
that  when  this  conception  takes  a really  strong  hold  on 
the  minds  of  Christians,  it  will  be  easier  to  let  this  cause 
have  first  place  in  life? 

The  Kingdom  in  modern  life 

Who  will  take  up  the  responsibility  of  fulfilling  the 
vocation  of  Jesus’  Kingdom  today?’*  Is  the  thought  of 
allegiance  to  this  Kingdom  commanding  enough  to  place 
it  as  a cause  above  other  causes? 

With  a cause  involving  issues  so  vital,  results  so  far- 
reaching,  and  a claim  so  universal,  can  we  not  expect 
the  fullest  development  of  all  the  social  virtues  which 
the  best  wars  have  ever  created,  and  look  forward  with 
confidence  to  the  expansion  and  multiplication  of  other 

^ Gal.  vi.  i6.  Peter  ii.  9.  ® James  i.  27. 

* This  chapter  has  been  written  in  full  recognition  of  the  fact  that 
the  Gospel  is  more  than  a social  force,  and  that  nothing  must  be  allowed 
to  supplant  or  detract  from  the  direct  and  personal  sway  of  Jesus  Christ 
in  the  individual  heart. 


82  THE  CHRISTIAN  EQUIVALENT  OF  WAR 


virtues  which  no  war  could  possibly  produce?  The  estab- 
lishment of  the  Kingdom  is  an  exhaustless  enterprise,  in 
the  interests  of  the  whole  man,  and  of  all  men.  Every 
man  has  his  place  in  its  service.  All  good  causes  are 
caught  up  into  it : what  really  worthy  cause  is  beyond 
its  scope? 

First  of  all,  this  Kingdom  is  founded  on  the  assumption 
that  goodwill  is  actually  invincible,  and  that  every  moral 
purpose  entering  into  any  national  ideal  may  be  realized 
only  through  the  power  of  friendship  and  brotherhood. 
In  the  Kingdom  scale  of  values  things  which  must  be  won 
by  personal  violence  are  not  considered  worth  the  win- 
ning. Since  the  aim  is  to  bring  all  men  into  one  great 
and  free  cooperative  effort,  men  must  be  won  to  this 
Kingdom. 

When  a man  is  loyal  to  this  Kingdom,  he  is  not  dis- 
loyal to  any  other  Good.  None  of  the  finer  loyalties  of 
his  life  need  be  sacrificed.  National  loyalty,  love  of 
home,  adherence  to  social  movements — as  long  as  such 
ideals  remain  unselfish — do  not  conflict  with  the  King- 
dom. In  the  great  cooperation  of  all  for  the  good  of  all, 
every  helper  is  wanted  at  his  best. 


The  campaign  ahead 

The  task  is  still  before  us.  What  single  nation  has 
ever  conceived  of  a grander  “national  vocation”  than  this : 
to  subdue  nature,  not  for  the  enrichment  of  individuals, 
but  for  the  service  of  mankind;  to  explore  the  field  of 
knowledge,  that  every  truth  which  will  help  man  to  be 
better  and  happier  may  be  discovered  and  made  avail- 
able ; to  remake  our  social  life  in  every  land  so  that  there 
shall  be  a free  opportunity  for  every  man  to  achieve  his 


A SOCIAL  EQUIVALENT  FOR  WAR  83 


best  for  the  good  of  all;  to  bring  all  men  to  understand 
and  appropriate  the  fundamental  principles  of  justice 
and  freedom;  to  overcome  evil  with  good;  to  smother 
hate  and  prejudice  under  such  an  overflowing  measure 
of  goodwill  that  the  wrong  is  buried  forever? 

If  such  an  ideal  cannot  stir  the  hearts  of  men  then 
they  must  surely  wish  for  something  lower.  They  must 
wish  to  see  one  nation  gain  all  the  spoil,  or  one  class 
dominate  their  country,  or  one  church  get  great  wealth 
and  worldly  influence,  or  deeply  desire  themselves  to  se- 
cure from  other  men  all  that  they  can  for  their  own  use. 
Such  ideals  seem  not  only  wrong  but  petty,  beside  the 
great  call  to  make  over  this  world  here  and  now  into  a 
place  of  free  opportunity,  surpassing  brotherhood,  and 
boundless,  active  happiness. 

In  spite  of  all  set-backs,  the  Kingdom  of  God  is  form- 
ing out  of  all  nations;  and  the  commerce  of  goodwill 
has  begun.  But  the  difficulties  are  many  and  the  active 
opponents  are  strong.  Brotherly  love  is  the  only  means 
that  will  be  ultimately  successful;  all  things  worth  while 
in  the  world  can  be  won  by  friendship.  The  Sermon  on 
the  Mount  is  the  gauntlet  flung  down  for  all  time  to 
those  who  say  that  the  strong  arm  wins  the  day.  No  true 
citizen  need  fear  that  a surplus  of  courage  and  devotion 
will  be  left  on  his  hands;  he  will  be  praying  for  powers 
equal  to  his  task. 


Supplementary  Reading 

Walter  Rauschenbusch,  “Christianity  and  the  Social 
Crisis,”  Chapters  I,  II,  and  III. 


84  THE  CHRISTIAN  EQUIVALENT  OF  WAR 


Suggestions  for  Thought  and  Discussion 
ON  Chapter  V 

How  was  the  national  movement  of  the  Jews  a social 
movement? 

When  is  a national  movement  a social  movement  ? Did 
the  Jewish  national  movement  meet  this  test? 

How  far  do  just  citizens  insure  a just  state?  Can  you 
have  an  unjust  state  made  up  of  just  citizens? 

What  are  the  characteristics  of  Jesus’  new  Kingdom? 

Was  Jesus  a Social  Reformer?  Why  do  you  make  this 
answer? 

How  far  would  the  acceptance  of  Jesus’  principles  for 
His  Kingdom  prove  an  antidote  for  war? 

Why  does  the  principle  of  love  make  the  new  King- 
dom invincible?  What  is  the  difference  between  the 
invincible  principle  of  love  and  the  conquerable  principle 
of  force? 

What  determines  the  limit  of  the  power  of  force  in  the 
life  of  the  individual  and  the  world?  What  is  the  effect 
of  force  upon  free  moral  action? 

If  the  adoption  of  the  new  Messianic  Kingdom  by  the 
Jews  had  not  resulted  in  national  freedom,  would  it  have 
failed  of  its  purpose? 

What  differences  would  the  inauguration  of  the  new 
Messianic  Kingdom  have  made  in  the  life  of  Pales- 
tine? What  differences  would  be  found  were  it  in- 
augurated today? 

What  is  the  secret  of  the  power  of  the  new  Messianic 
Kingdom  of  Jesus? 


HAS  JESUS  AN  EQUIVALENT  OF  WAR  FOR 
THE  INDIVIDUAL? 


CHAPTER  VI 


HAS  JESUS  AN  EQUIVALENT  OF 
WAR  FOR  THE  INDIVIDUAL? 

Terrible  as  war  is  we  cannot  close  our  eyes  to  the 
fact  that  it  tends  to  enlarge  the  social  consciousness,  uni- 
versalize unselfishness,  promote  cooperation,  strengthen 
cohesiveness,  and  develop  loyalty  to  a common  cause.  It 
has  often  meant  “a  purification  and  elevation  of  the  na- 
tional life.  A common  purpose  has  lifted  men  above 
themselves.  They  have  found  themselves  ready  to  make 
undreamed-of  sacrifices  for  the  sake  of  a worthy  cause. 
It  is  the  power  of  war  to  evoke  such  efforts  that  makes 
men  tolerate  an  evil  so  hateful.  War  is  nobler  than 
ease-loving  materialism,  and  men  are  aware  of  it.”  ^ 

At  the  outset  it  will  seem  to  some  a hopeless  search  to 
look  to  the  quiet  methods  which  Jesus  used  for  an  effec- 
tive plan  by  which  to  produce  an  equivalent  of  the  values 
for  the  individual  resulting  from  war.  How  can  such 
methods  develop  an  enthusiasm  for  a common  cause, 
which  will  be  as  universal  as  that  set  ablaze  by  war  and 
fanned  by  preparation  for  possible  war,  and  which  will 
be  kept  burning  in  the  hearts  of  men  who  accept  no 
other  discipline  than  that  of  the  “meek  and  lowly”  Jesus? 

^ In  Papers  for  the  War  Time,  No.  9,  entitled  “The  Witness  of  the 
Chiirch  in  the  Present  Crisis,”  p.  13. 


88  THE  CHRISTIAN  EQUIVALENT  OF  WAR 


How  can  any  peaceful  cause  be  great  enough  to  give 
birth  to  the  rough  “martial”  virtues  ? The  challenge  is 
a fair  one,  but  does  it  not  fail  to  take  account  of  the  fact 
that  the  program  of  Jesus  is  both  mild  and  militant, 
and  is  as  universal  as  it  is  individual?  The  only  way  in 
which  we  can  test  the  matter  is  by  seeking  to  discover 
the  effects  in  the  lives  of  men  of  the  spirit  and  program 
of  Jesus. 

The  discipline  of  Jesus 

Although,  as  we  have  seen,  Jesus  turned  away  repeat- 
edly from  the  achievements  and  glory  of  a military  career, 
yet  His  unwillingness  to  “restore  the  Kingdom  to  Israel” 
by  force  was  due  in  no  sense  to  any  shrinking  from  the 
perils  or  responsibilities  involved.'  He  foresaw  that  the 
course  which  He  deliberately  chose  would  end  in  a most 
painful  and  humiliating  death.  Long  before  His  cruci- 
fixion He  began  to  prepare  His  disciples  for  this  apparent 
ending  of  their  hopes.  Yet  “He  stedfastly  set  His  face 
to  go  to  Jerusalem,”  and  there  suffer  the  consequences 
of  what  He  believed  to  be  His  duty.*  One  who  was  im- 
pressed by  His  resolute  courage  wrote  that  He  “learned 
obedience  by  the  things  which  he  suffered.”  * 

Are  we  to  infer,  then,  that  Jesus  chose  suffering  as  a 
means  of  discipline?  It  is  very  clear  that  He  was  ex- 
tremely sensitive  to  both  joy  and  pain,  and  that  His  life 
was  rich  in  its  emotional  experiences.  Undoubtedly  these 
experiences  had  a profound  influence  upon  His  life  and 
work.  But  is  there  any  evidence  that  He  consciously 
sought  either  joy  or  pain  as  an  end  in  itself,  or  for  any 
discipline  that  He  might  gain  thereby?  He  deliberately 


1 See  Chapter  III.  ® Luke  ix.  51;  Mark  viii.  31-33-  ® Heb.  v.  7-8. 


EQUIVALENT  OF  WAR  FOR  INDIVIDUAL  89 


turned  from  the  ascetic  practice  of  John  the  Baptist. 
He  never  lived  the  life  of  a recluse;  nor  is  there  any  evi- 
dence that  He  ever  practised  austerities  for  their  own 
sake,  or  for  their  effect  upon  Himself.  He  was  “touched 
with  no  ascetic  gloom,”  and  entered  joyously  into  the  best 
pleasures  of  those  whom  He  loved.  At  the  wedding 
feast  of  His  kinsman.  He  helped  provide  for  the  enter- 
tainment of  the  guests.  He  was  as  much  at  home  at  the 
tables  of  the  rich  as  in  the  cottages  of  the  poor,  and  was 
constantly  seeking  opportunities  of  mingling  with  all  sorts 
and  conditions  of  men.  He  seemed  to  select  His  paths 
of  duty  irrespective  of  any  enjoyment  or  suffering. 

His  fundamental  choice 

These  facts  drive  us  back  of  all  His  experiences  of 
joy  or  pain,  to  a fundamental  choice  on  the  part  of  Jesus. 
Although  as  a boy  of  twelve  He  came  to  Jerusalem  with 
an  unusually  active  mind  and  the  consciousness  of  a 
special  mission,  yet  for  many  years  longer  He  chose  to 
remain  under  the  discipline  of  His  humble  Jewish  home, 
and  to  identify  Himself  with  the  common  lot  of  His 
fellowmen  by  learning  a trade,  and  by  submitting  to  the 
limitations  of  life  in  one  of  the  despised  villages  of  His 
country.  By  far  the  greater  part  of  His  life  was  spent 
in  this  way;  and  even  in  the  three  short  years  of  His 
wider  ministry  He  still  preferred  to  share  the  common  lot, 
and  to  identify  Himself  in  every  way  with  the  needs  of 
His  brother  men.  His  followers  were  evidently  deeply 
impressed  with  the  significance  of  His  adherence  to  this 
way  of  living,  for  one  of  them  wrote,  with  the  memory 
of  His  life  still  vivid,  that  “it  became  Him  in  all  things 


90  THE  CHRISTIAN  EQUIVALENT  OF  WAR 


to  be  made  like  unto  his  brethren,  that  he  might  become  a 
merciful  and  faithful”  representative  of  the  people. 

His  controlling  motive 

By  thus  identifying  Himself  with  all  the  interests  of 
His  fellowmen,  and  living  for  their  highest  welfare,  Jesus 
found  His  life  by  His  very  willingness  to  lose  it.  Even 
character  and  holiness  ceased  to  be  ends  in  themselves. 
His  disciples  remembered  His  words:  “For  their  sakes 
I sanctify  myself.”^  Emphatically  He  had  told  them: 
“Whosoever  shall  seek  to  gain  his  life  shall  lose  it : but 
whosoever  shall  lose  his  life,  shall  save  it  alive.”  ® Is 
it  not  evident  that  what  Jesus  did  and  what  He  suffered 
came  from  a larger  motive  than  the  desire  for  personal 
development?  Are  we  not  compelled,  therefore,  to  go 
back  of  all  external  methods  of  discipline,  and  all  de- 
liberately sought  experiences  to  the  great  controlling  mo- 
tive of  Jesus’  life?  He  was  constantly  seeking  the  will 
of  His  Father.  This  was  the  very  sustenance  of  His 
life.®  He  lived  so  consciously  and  so  constantly  in  the 
most  intimate  relations  with  His  Father  that  the  will  of 
God  was  to  Him  no  arbitrary  rule  of  conduct  imposed 
by  external  authority.  On  the  contrary  He  found  His 
Father’s  will  through  the  deep  consciousness  of  His  own 
Sonship,  and  of  His  Father’s  purpose  that  all  men  should 
love  Him  as  their  Father,  and  one  another  as  brothers. 

His  manliness 

Did  His  passion  to  do  the  will  of  God  fail  to  call  out 
in  Jesus  those  moral  qualities  which  we  have  found  are 

*John  xvii.  19.  ® Luke  xvii.  33  (Marg.  R.  V.). 

® John  iv.  34. 


EQUIVALENT  OF  WAR  FOR  INDIVIDUAL  gi 


developed  in  -war?  We  have  already  noticed  His  un- 
compromising courage  in  dealing  with  the  faults  of  men, 
and  His  calm  resolution  in  the  face  of  their  active  hatred/ 
His  self-control,  too,  was  perfect,  even  when  He  ex- 
perienced the  extremes  of  hunger  and  weariness,  and 
when  all  about  Him  was  in  commotion.  Where  can  we 
find  a sublimer  illustration  of  endurance  or  of  self-sacri- 
fice than  in  Jesus?  Who  has  ever  shown  greater  re- 
sourcefulness under  conditions  of  extreme  difficulty  than 
He,  as  when  men  sought  to  entrap  Him  in  His  words, 
or  to  send  Him  headlong  over  a precipice?  In  whom 
has  decision  of  character  and  faithfulness  to  duty  been 
more  fully  exemplified?  Is  there  a single  trait  of  manli- 
ness of  which  He  is  not  the  supreme  example?  Although 
art  has  distorted  our  mental  picture  of  the  face  of  Jesus, 
who  in  all  the  ages  has  called  forth  such  universal  ad- 
miration both  for  the  quieter  virtues  and  for  all  the 
vigorous  qualities  of  strongest  manhood? 

The  followers  of  Jesus 

In  the  followers  of  Jesus  we  find  that  similar  qualities 
are  reproduced  in  proportion  as  men  have  caught  the 
vision  of  the  all-embracing  mission  of  the  Kingdom,  and 
of  all  that  world-wide  brotherhood  really  means;  how 
much  has  to  be  righted  in  personal  habits  and  purposes 
as  well  as  in  business,  in  society,  and  in  politics,  in  order 
to  make  it  possible  for  men  to  live  as  brothers. 

His  early  disciples  were  constantly  reminded  how 
much  greater  reasons  and  incentives  they  had  for  physi- 
cal development  and  self-control  than  had  even  soldiers 
or  athletes.*  They  were  taught  the  vital  relation  be- 


^ See  Chapter  III. 


Cor.  ix.  2S,  26;  Eph.  vi.  10-17. 


92  THE  CHRISTIAN  EQUIVALENT  OF  WAR 


tween  body  and  spirit,  and  the  importance  at  any  cost 
of  keeping  the  body  in  subjection/  Some  who  had 
been  too  easy  with  themselves  were  rebuked:  “In 
your  struggle  against  sin  you  have  not  yet  resisted  so 
as  to  endanger  your  lives.”  “ They  were  reminded  of  na- 
tional heroes  who  had  accomplished  the  impossible 
through  faith,  and  were  summoned  as  by  a battle  cry  to 
more  heroic  exertion : “Let  us  fling  aside  every  en- 
cumbrance and  the  sin  that  so  readily  entangles  our  feet. 
And  let  us  run  with  patient  endurance  the  race  that  lies 
before  us,  simply  fixing  our  gaze  upon  Jesus.”® 

The  discipline  of  the  mil 

The  conditions  of  warfare  are  supposed  to  be  especially 
favorable  for  the  discipline  of  the  will ; but  long  before 
modern  writers  pointed  out  the  “central  importance  of 
will  and  action,”  Jesus  had  anticipated  them  by  the  con- 
ditions of  comradeship  in  His  warfare.  Religion  and  life 
were  to  Him  matters  not  merely  of  the  affections  or  of 
the  understanding,  but  of  the  will.  A fundamental  con- 
dition for  discovering  truth  in  His  Kingdom  is  well  set 
forth — “If  any  man  willcth  to  do  his  will  he  shall  know 
of  the  teaching.”  * The  religion  of  Jesus  made  no  attempt 
to  satisfy  merely  curious  intellects  or  purposeless  emo- 
tions; its  teachings  were  addressed  primarily  to  the  will. 
“If  ye  know  these  things,  happy  are  ye  if  ye  do  them.”® 
Even  prayer  becomes,  not  only  clear  thinking  and  right 
feeling,  but  both  of  these  expressed  in  acts  of  will.  Those 
who  consistently  meet  the  conditions  of  Jesus  discover 
that  “private  prayer,  when  it  is  real  action,  is  the  greatest 


^ I Cor.  vi.  19;  ix.  27. 

® Heb.  xii.  i,  2 (Weymouth). 


® Heb.  xii.  4 (Weymouth). 

*John  xiii.  17.  ®John  vii.  17. 


EQUIVALENT  OF  WAR  FOR  INDIVIDUAL  93 


forge  of  personality.  It  places  a man  in  direct  and  effec- 
tive contact  with  God  the  Creator,  the  source  of  origi- 
nality, and  especially  with  God  the  Redeemer  as  the  source 
of  our  new  creation.”  ^ The  early  disciple  who  has  most 
profoundly  impressed  the  world  by  his  thinking,  learned 
through  his  own  relationship  with  Jesus  possibilities  of 
attainment  for  the  human  will  such  as  he  had  never  be- 
fore realized.® 

More  effective  in  steeling  the  will  than  even  the  rugged 
discipline  of  war  is  the  strong  and  ever-present  pull  of  this 
divine  loyalty  which  draws  men  with  a power  far  beyond 
the  force  of  even  the  sternest  necessity. 

The  control  of  the  emotions 

While  it  may  be  true  that  war  has  furnished  an  oppor- 
tunity for  the  growth  of  the  manly  virtues,  yet  it  must 
be  recognized  that  it  also  tends  to  unbridle  the  natural 
passions  of  man.  Little  incentive  is  given  by  war  for 
curbing  hatred,  lust,  or  the  passion  for  self-aggrandize- 
ment. Jesus,  on  the  contrary,  makes  provision  for  the 
most  complete  control  of  man’s  emotional  nature.  He  was 
constantly  calling  men  to  realize  that  the  heart  was  the 
fountain  of  life;®  His  disciples  learned  that  “whosoever 
hateth  his  brother  is  a murderer,” *  * that  the  impure  look 
is  in  reality  a gross  sin.®  Jesus  knew  that  the  human  heart 
of  itself  could  not  be  emptied  of  these  evil  feelings,  that 
only  “the  expulsive  power  of  a new  affection”  could  keep 
men  pure.  As  the  disciples  saw  the  love  of  Jesus  con- 
stantly expressed  in  many  ways,  and  marveled  at  its  in- 


^ P.  T.  Forsyth,  “The  Power  of  Prayer,”  p.  in.  See  G.  A.  Beaver, 
“Every  Man’s  Part  in  World  Brotherhood.” 

^ See  Romans  vii.  15-25,  and  viii.  ^ Mark  vii.  14-23. 

*I  John  iii.  15.  ® Matt.  v.  28. 


94  the  CHRISTIAN  EQUIVALENT  OF  WAR 


fluence  upon  proud  and  sinful  men  and  women,  they  must 
have  been  prepared  for  the  larger  social  message,  “A  new 
commandment  I give  unto  you,  that  ye  love  one  another; 
even  as  I have  loved  you,  that  ye  also  love  one  another.”  ^ 

The  development  of  the  mind 

Although  much  can  be  said  about  the  stimulating  effect 
of  war  upon  the  intellectual  life  of  those  who  bear  special 
responsibilities,  or  who  have  unusual  opportunities  and 
incentives  for  thinking,  must  it  not  be  admitted  that  upon 
the  great  mass  of  those  who  fight  and  those  who  suffer, 
war  has  often  had  a stupefying  or  stultifying  effect  ? Jesus, 
on  the  contrary,  intends  that  every  one  who  accepts  His 
conditions  of  discipleship  shall  have  the  best  chance  for 
all  the  intellectual  development  of  which  he  is  capable. 
This  truth  has  been  sadly  obscured  by  the  cupidity  and 
intolerance  of  many  who  have  borne  His  name.  But  the 
dealing  of  Jesus  Himself  with  men  always  brought  intel- 
lectual freedom.  “If  you  hold  fast  to  my  teaching,  then 
you  are  truly  my  disciples;  and  you  shall  know  the  Truth, 
and  the  Truth  shall  make  you  free.”* 

Instances  could  be  multiplied  of  how  minds  of  the  most 
diverse  capacities  have  found  their  freest  and  fullest  de- 
velopment in  the  spiritual  warfare  of  Jesus.®  The  epistles 
of  Paul,  read  with  special  reference  to  the  life  and  charac- 
ter which  they  reveal,  show  what  the  Christian  equivalent 
of  war  did  for  one  of  the  most  original  and  creative  of 


^Tohn  xiii.  34.  _ “John  viii.  32  (Weymouth). 

® In  our  own  day  the  life  as  well  as  the  writings  of  Phillips  Brooks 
are  a most  inspiring  commentary  upon  this  subject.  See  especially  his 
lectures;  The  Influence  of  Jesus  on  the  moral,  the  social,  the  emo- 
tional, and  the  intellectual  life  of  man.  John  Woolman’s  “Journal” 
illustrates  what  Jesus  can  do  for  the  intellectual  life  of  a man  with 
quite  different  opportunities  and  capacities. 


EQUIVALENT  OF  WAR  FOR  INDIVIDUAL  95 


minds.  Paul  found  in  Jesus  a relationship  to  God  and 
to  his  fellowmen  which  changed  his  entire  conception  of 
life  and  service.  This  is  evident  from  the  way  he  was 
driven  into  Arabia  to  think,  and  from  all  his  subsequent 
life  and  writings.  It  was  from  a new  intellectual  point 
of  view  that  he  wrote:  “If  any  man  is  in  Christ  there 
is  a new  creation : the  old  things  are  passed  away ; be- 
hold they  are  become  new.” ' 

A spiritual  conflict 

Such  is  the  self-control  and  such  the  discipline  of  intel- 
lect, feelings,  and  will  which  the  Christian  equivalent  of 
war  offers  to  every  individual  who  will  enlist  in  the  strug- 
gle against  evil.  It  “is  not  a conflict  with  mere  flesh 
and  blood,  but  with  the  despotisms,  the  empires,  the  forces 
that  control  and  govern  this  dark  world — the  spiritual 
hosts  of  evil  arrayed  against  us  in  the  heavenly  war- 
fare.” ^ None  of  the  fundamental  evil  motives  of  carnal 
war  can  thrive  in  this  warfare  of  the  soul.  It  is  not  a 
fight  for  material  possession,  nor  is  it  a fight  for  great- 
ness; so  there  can  be  no  greed  or  selfish  ambition.  Still 
less  can  there  be  hatred  or  retaliation.®  And  yet  it  is  a 
fight  of  supreme  importance,  for  it  is  a question  of  life 
itself.  Jesus  said  He  had  come  to  bring  this  life  more 
abundantly.  “What  doth  it  profit  a man,”  He  said,  “to 
gain  the  whole  world,  and  forfeit  his  life?”'* *  The  con- 
ditions which  He  laid  down  as  essential  for  this  life  are, 
therefore,  no  less  exacting,  and  are  far  richer  in  in- 
centives and  rewards  than  is  any  discipline  which  war  can 
offer.  He  made  it  plain  that  there  must  be  no  slackening 


^ II  Cor.  V.  17  (Marg.  R.  V.). 

* See  Chapter  I. 


vi.  12  (Weymouth). 
* Mark  viii.  36. 


96  THE  CHRISTIAN  EQUIVALENT  OF  WAR 


of  discipline : “If  thy  hand  ...  if  thy  foot  cause  thee 
to  stumble,  cut  it  off  ...  if  thy  eye  cause  thee  to 
stumble,  cast  it  out.” ' Every  man  must  be  relentless 
with  himself  even  to  the  point  of  sacrificing  whatever 
might  otherwise  be  both  useful  and  needful,  rather  than 
allow  Jesus’  conditions  of  life  to  be  violated. 


The  influence  of  the  Cause 

But,  after  all,  the  highest  development  is  not  to  be 
secured  from  any  mere  discipline  or  fight  for  charac- 
ter. Is  it  not  evident  that  any  external  regimen  which 
seeks  to  be  a moral  equivalent  of  war  must  fail,  as 
the  Mosaic  Law  failed,  because  it  does  not  have  in  it 
the  life-giving  spirit  ? Whatever  the  beneficent  effects  in 
character  accomplished  by  war,  they  arise,  not  chiefly 
out  of  the  discipline  of  military  regulations,  but  out  of 
the  spirit  of  sacrifice  and  devotion  which  leads  men  to 
forget  themselves  in  a cause  that  is  far  greater  than  any 
individual  or  than  any  self-centered  friendships  or 
merely  local  interests.  If,  therefore,  we  would  seek  from 
Jesus  a moral  equivalent  for  the  effect  of  war  upon  char- 
acter, we  must  go  with  Him  back  of  His  ethical  teaching 
and  of  any  external  habits  of  His  life,  back  even  of  His 
principles  and  ideals,  to  the  fundamental  motive  of  His 
life — His  relationship  to  His  Father  in  Heaven.  If  we 
would  thus  follow  Him  to  the  only  source  of  enduring 
character,  we  must  find  and  maintain  the  most  favorable 
conditions  for  the  growth  of  this  filial  relationship  with 
our  Heavenly  Father,  and  of  the  consequent  brotherly 
relations  with  our  fellowmen.  We  must  learn  like  Him 


^ Mark  ix.  43,  47. 


EQUIVALENT  OF  WAR  FOR  INDIVIDUAL  97 


to  find  our  lives  by  losing  them  in  the  larger  life  of  the 
great  Kingdom  which  He  came  to  establish  among  men. 

Paul’s  life  and  letters  illustrate  how  essential  the  social 
and  world-wide  program  of  Jesus  is  to  the  highest  de- 
velopment of  the  individual.  Paul  had  no  doubt  that  he 
was  spending  himself  in  the  one  great  undertaking  in 
which  he  could  find  his  largest  growth.  Whether  he  was 
sewing  tents  or  writing  letters,  taking  virtual  command 
in  a shipwreck,  or  speaking  to  curious  Athenians,  it  was 
his  life  to  serve  those  whom  he  would  win  for  the  new 
brotherhood.  Most  of  those  whom  he  won  likewise 
counted  no  sacrifice  too  great  for  the  common  cause. 
There  is  no  doubt  that  their  Father’s  love,  as  they  had 
discovered  it  in  Jesus,  made  better  and  stronger  men  of 
them  and  of  their  fellow  disciples  than  could  any  influ- 
ence of  war  or  any  hopes  of  mere  political  freedom. 
The  human  impossibility  of  their  insignificant  numbers 
making  any  great  impression  upon  the  world,  and  their 
common  peril  from  both  Jews  and  Romans,  developed 
not  only  daring  faith,  but  loving  unity  and  heroic  sacri- 
fice. 

The  immediate  duty 

How  are  we  to  have  the  moral  equivalent  of  these  con- 
ditions in  the  complex  and  luxurious  life  of  our  day? 
And  how  is  the  hope  of  real  brotherhood  to  be  made  as 
compelling  to  us  as  it  was  to  the  Apostles?  Doubtless 
many  things  never  before  attempted  must  be  undertaken 
by  the  Church,  and  by  various  forms  of  Christian  organi- 
zation, to  make  our  sense  of  brotherly  obligation  more 
definite  and  imperative.  National  and  community  govern- 
ments also  have  much  to  do  in  making  the  conditions  of 


98  THE  CHRISTIAN  EQUIVALENT  OF  WAR 


real  brotherhood  possible  for  all  men.  These  new  under- 
takings in  Church  and  State  will  bring  to  every  individual 
most  important  duties  of  which  he  is  now  but  dimly 
aware.  Some  of  these  duties  have  been  touched  upon  else- 
where. Many  are  too  far  reaching  for  discussion  here,  but 
will  be  more  fully  disclosed  as  men  of  all  nations  reso- 
lutely set  themselves  to  establish  righteous  and  enduring 
peace.  This  enterprise,  which  individual  Christians  as 
well  as  governments,  and  even  the  Church  itself,  have 
too  long  neglected,  offers  a field  where  the  virile  qualities 
are  most  necessary,  and  where  they  should  be  exercised 
to  the  utmost. 

But  where  and  in  what  spirit  shall  the  individual  make 
a beginning  if  he  would  find  the  best  equivalent  of  war? 
Must  he  not  throw  himself,  as  the  Apostles  did,  into 
the  world  program  of  Jesus  with  the  completeness  of 
their  devotion,  before  he  can  expect  in  his  individual  life 
the  effects  which  they  experienced?  The  whole  tenor 
of  the  New  Testament  shows  that  all  pride  of  race,  posi- 
tion, or  achievement  must  be  put  away,  and  that  the 
teachable  spirit,  which  Jesus  alone  can  impart,  must  be 
brought  into  all  the  relationships  of  life.  How  can  this 
be  done  except  by  the  method  which  Paul  found  neces- 
sary— the  actual  daily  living  of  the  Christ-like  life? 

The  great  adventure 

No  one  can  go  far  in  this  endeavor  without* discovering 
that  it  is  the  great  adventure,  that  nothing  else  brings  so 
completely  into  play  all  that  is  best  and  strongest  in  human 
nature.  Our  very  failures  in  trying  to  bring  real  love  into 
every  transaction  of  life,  and  into  the  winning  of  our 
fellowmen  to  the  hope  and  purpose  of  Christian  brother- 


EQUIVALENT  OF  WAR  FOR  INDIVIDUAL  99 


hood,  will  compel  new  discoveries  of  God’s  resources  as 
our  Father  and  their  Father.  We  shall  find  that  only  as 
the  Spirit  of  Jesus  dominates  our  thought  and  action  can 
His  influence  be  exerted  through  us  upon  those  whom  we 
would  lead  into  His  friendship  and  service.^  Then  prayer 
for  others,  as  well  as  personal  communion  with  God,  will 
take  a new  and  larger  place  in  our  life  and  we  shall  trust 
Him  to  do  His  work  in  His  own  way.  As  He  thus  works 
through  us  the  experiences  of  Jesus  and  of  those  who 
knew  Him  best  will  be  so  repeated  that  the  New  Testa- 
ment will  become  reenacted  for  our  day.  We  ourselves 
shall  become  a new  creation ; old  things  will  have  passed 
away;  all  things  will  become  new.’  We  shall  see  that 
every  one  must  come  through  the  unity  of  the  family  of 
God,  as  no  individual  or  even  race  can  come  alone,  to  the 
knowledge  of  the  Son  of  God.  He  will  be  revealed  more 
completely  to  us,  as  men  of  every  race  and  nation  seek  to 
know  and  serve  Him  better,  and  as  they  are  set  free  to 
work  out  their  own  destiny  within  the  larger  unity  of 
faith.  Thus  each  shall  come,  in  the  only  way  possible 
for  us,  “unto  a full  grown  man,  unto  the  measure  of  the 
stature  of  the  fullness  of  Christ.”  ’ 

Supplementary  Reading 

Study  carefully  the  Scripture  references  mentioned  in 
the  footnotes. 

W.  M.  Ramsay,  “St.  Paul  the  Traveller  and  the  Roman 
Citizen.” 

Lives  of  militant  leaders  in  the  church,  such  as  Martin 
Luther,  Francis  Xavier,  John  Wesley,  and  David  Living- 
stone. 


^ Gal.  ii.  20. 


® II  Cor.  V.  17. 


^ Eph.  iv.  13. 


100  THE  CHRISTIAN  EQUIVALENT  OF  WAR 


Suggestions  for  Thought  and  Discussion 
ON  Chapter  VI 

What  is  the  place  of  hard  things  in  the  development  of 
character? 

What  is  the  difference  in  the  effect  on  character  of 
football,  baseball,  and  golf? 

How  far  is  conflict  necessary  to  the  development  of 
character?  What  is  the  difference  between  conflict  in 
games  and  conflict  in  real  life? 

How  far  are  difficulties  essential  to  developing  strong 
character  ? Why  does  a hard  task  make  so  strong  an  ap- 
peal to  young  persons? 

What  is  the  difference  in  the  effect  upon  character  be- 
tween self-inflicted  hardship  and  sacrifice  for  a worthy 
enterprise?  Is  it  inevitable  that  sacrifice  will  be  neces- 
sary in  following  a worthy  cause?  Why,  or  why  not? 

What  was  the  effect  upon  Jesus  of  devotion  to  His  cause? 

For  your  ideal  of  Jesus,  what  changes  would  be  neces- 
sary in  His  representation  in  religious  art? 

What  “martial”  qualities  were  developed  in  Jesus’  life 
by  His  service  in  His  cause  ? 

What  was  the  effect  of  devotion  to  His  enterprise  upon 
Jesus’  followers? 

What  effect  did  following  Jesus  have  upon  the  cour- 
age of  the  early  Christians?  How  many  of  them  can  be 
included  in  the  roll  of  the  courageous? 

How  far  is  war  necessary  if  strong  will  power  is  to  be 
developed  through  devotion  to  a cause? 


EQUIVALENT  OF  WAR  FOR  INDIVIDUAL  loi 


What  is  the  difference  in  the  effect  of  stern  necessity 
and  of  voluntary  loyal  action  for  a worthy  enterprise  ? 

What  is  the  difference  in  the  development  of  will  power 
between  war  and  loyalty  to  the  Christian  enterprise? 

What  emotions  does  war  develop?  Do  worthy  or  un- 
worthy emotions  predominate? 

What  is  the  difference  in  the  effect  upon  the  emotions 
between  devotion  to  a war  cause,  and  to  a peaceful 
cause?  Between  war  and  the  Christian  enterprise? 

What  light  does  history  throw  upon  the  contributions 
of  war  and  of  the  Christian  Church  to  the  development  of 
the  intellect? 

What  new  qualities  of  leadership  were  developed  after 
Paul  gave  himself  to  the  Christian  enterprise?  For  what 
qualities  of  leadership  did  he  find  no  further  use? 

In  which  cause  are  motives  and  opportunities  first  ex- 
hausted— a cause  promoted  by  war  methods  or  the  great 
Christian  cause? 

What  is  the  real  secret  of  the  moral  effects  of  war? 

How  far  does  the  secret  lie  in  the  discipline  and  com- 
bat, and  how  far  in  the  spirit  of  devotion  to  the  cause 
represented  in  the  war?  In  what  ways  is  the  secret  of 
the  development  of  Christian  character  similar? 

What  are  the  opportunities  in  the  life  of  today  for 
practical  enterprises  equal  to  war  in  their  moral  ef- 
fects upon  the  individual? 


SUPPLEMENTARY  NOTES 


SUPPLEMENTARY  NOTES 


• I 

THE  SUBSIDENCE  OF  FORCE  IN  THE  NAR- 
ROWER SOCIAL  RELATIONS 

A familiar  illustration  of  the  subsidence  of  the  appeal 
to  physical  force  in  individual  relationships  is  furnished 
by  the  almost  complete  disappearance  of  slavery  from 
modern  life.  In  Rome’s  palmiest  days  three-fourths  of 
the  people  were  slaves,  chained  in  the  fields  when  at 
work,  chained  at  night  in  their  dormitories,  or  chained 
to  the  doorways  as  porters.  Slavery  was  the  foundation 
of  a type  of  society  which  has  not  had  the  vitality  to 
survive.  It  was  discovered  that  free  labor  was  more 
profitable  than  slave  labor  because  the  free  man  took  an 
intelligent  interest  in  his  work. 

Mr.  Angell  graphically  illustrates  it,  “Here  are  two 
men : one  is  digging ; the  other  is  standing  over  him  with 
a whip  or  a weapon.  We  are  apt  to  think  of  one  as 
bond,  and  the  other  as  free;  but  both  are  bond.  If  the 
man  with  the  whip  or  weapon  is  thirsty,  and  wants  to  go 
to  the  river  to  drink,  he  cannot;  his  slave  would  run 
away.  He  is  sleepy  and  wants  to  sleep,  equally  he  cannot. 
He  would  like  to  hunt;  equally  he  cannot.  He  is  bound, 
tied  to  the  slave  much  as  the  slave  is  tied  to  him.  His 
work  of  control,  compulsion,  watching,  whatever  you 

105 


io6  THE  CHRISTIAN  EQUIVALENT  OF  WAR 


care  to  call  it,  is  not  directly  productive  at  all;  it  is  only 
indirectly  productive,  necessitated  by  the  resistance  of  the 
slave.  If  we  can  imagine  the  slave  driver  or  owner, 
wearied  with  this  arrangement,  saying  to  the  slave,  T 
am  going  hunting,  and  if  you  will  stay  here  and  do  this 
task  during  the  day,  I will  give  you  half  of  the  proceeds 
of  my  hunt,’  and  the  slave  agreeing  to  this,  you  double 
the  productivity  of  the  two  men ; you  have  two  producing 
instead  of  one.  Indeed,  you  have  more,  because  if  the 
offer  is  such  as  really  to  involve  a voluntary  agreement 
on  the  part  of  the  slave — a desire  to  do  the  work  in  order 
to  get  the  reward — all  the  energy  which  the  slave  origi- 
nally devoted  to  looking  for  a chance  of  escape  is  now 
liberated  for  his  task.”  ^ 

The  economic  argument  for  the  abolition  of  slavery  has 
been  everywhere  reinforced  by  the  moral  motive  which 
has  demanded  the  recognition  of  the  rights  of  the  indi- 
vidual; in  fact  men  have  often  been  more  prompt  in 
responding  to  the  moral  than  to  the  economic  appeal,  as 
was  clearly  the  case  when  slavery  was  abolished  from  the 
United  States  of  America. 

Another  illustration  of  the  subsidence  of  force  is  found 
in  judicial  procedure.  A century  and  a half  ago  torture 
was  largely  resorted  to  in  the  trial  of  criminals.  But  it 
was  gradually  realized  that  the  use  of  force  really  de- 
feated its  own  ends,  for  the  prisoner  was  quite  as  likely 
to  lie  as  to  tell  the  truth.  Torture  was,  therefore,  aban- 
doned as  useless  as  well  as  cruel. 

Similarly  with  the  physical  punishment  of  crime.  In 
England  branding  and  mutilation  were  common,  and  cap- 
ital punishment  was  the  penalty  for  many  petty  misdeeds. 


* Norman  Angell,  “Arms  and  Industry,”  p.  14. 


SUPPLEMENTARY  NOTES 


107 


But  violent  crime  ■was  rampant.  Though  the  highway- 
men carried  their  lives  in  their  hands,  they  swarmed 
upon  every  road.  When  the  excessive  penalties  were 
abrogated,  crime  diminished ; and  as  our  leaders  are 
learning  that  punishment  should  be  the  instrument  of  re- 
form rather  than  retribution,  moral  force  is  gradually 
being  substituted  for  physical.^ 

In  the  evolution  of  the  modern  science  of  education 
there  has  likewise  been  a marked  tendency  to  relegate  the 
use  of  physical  force  to  the  limbo  of  obsolete  and  dis- 
carded methods.  And  yet  it  once  held  a very  prominent 
place  in  educational  practice.  There  was  a time  when 
the  average  school  boy  received  constant  thrashings.  His 
lessons  were  supposed  to  be  thrashed  into  him,  and  his 
faults  thrashed  out.  But  it  was  finally  discovered  that 
such  discipline  did  not  always  result  in  either  scholarship 
or  character.  Scarcely  any  one  today  would  venture  to 
advocate  the  reintroduction  of  the  harsh  methods  of 
former  generations,  realizing  that  they  tended  to  blunt 
the  feelings  and  thus  to  retard  true  progress.  Present- 
day  methods  are  based  on  the  assumption  that  the  appeal 
to  reason  and  conscience  is  more  effective  and  productive 
of  better  and  more  permanent  results  than  any  form  of 
mere  physical  coercion. 


II 

MILITARY  POWER  AND  NATIONAL  WEALTH 

The  underlying  assumption  of  the  militarist  party  is 
clearly  set  forth  by  Frederic  Harrison,  who  declared  that 


^ Cf  W.  E.  Wilson,  “Christ  and  War,”  pp,  154,  155. 


io8  THE  CHRISTIAN  EQUIVALENT  OF  WAR 


if  England  allowed  Germany  to  outrun  her  in  the  race  of 
armaments  “famine,  social  anarchy,  incalculable  chaos  in 
the  industrial  and  financial  world  would  be  the  inevitable 
result.” ' A similar  attitude  was  taken  by  Professor  von 
Schulze-Gaevernitz,  of  Germany,  who  said : “We  want  our 
navy  in  order  to  confine  the  commercial  rivalry  of  Eng- 
land within  innocuous  limits,  and  to  deter  the  sober  sense 
of  the  English  people  from  the  extremely  threatening 
thought  of  attack  upon  us.  . . . The  German  navy 

is  a condition  of  our  bare  existence  and  independence,  like 
the  daily  bread  on  which  we  depend  not  only  for  our- 
selves but  for  our  children.”  ^ 

The  policy  that  regards  national  wealth  as  dependent 
on  military  power  has  doubtless  to  a degree  been  justified 
in  the  experience  of  the  past.  In  the  days  of  the  Romans, 
for  instance,  the  conqueror  often  received  material  ad- 
vantage from  pressing  his  conquest.  Government  and 
soldiers  together  shared  the  acquisition  of  land,  loot,  and 
labor  which  accrued  from  their  victories.  In  the  middle 
ages,  too,  economic  conditions  were  such  as  to  make  war 
profitable  to  the  victors,  who  could  often  win  possessions 
and  slaves  without  a disproportionate  outlay  of  life  and 
treasure.  Within  comparatively  recent  times  the  con- 
quest of  uncivilized  or  only  partially  civilized  races  has 
brought  material  advantage  to  the  conquering  nation  and 
to  some  extent  to  the  world  at  large,  for  it  has  resulted 
in  the  opening  of  new  markets. 

War  in  the  past  has  also  undoubtedly  been  stimulated 
by  trade.  Competition  for  the  trade  of  the  Levant  during 
the  period  of  the  Crusades  kept  the  cities  of  Italy  in  a con- 
stant state  of  mutual  antagonism.  Spain  and  the  Nether- 


^ Quoted  in  “The  Great  Illusion,”  p.  6. 


SUPPLEMENTARY  NOTES 


109 


lands  fought  for  the  trade  of  East  India.  England  and 
France  were  in  arms  against  one  another  for  a century 
over  problems  of  trade.  Venice  in  early  modern  times 
became  more  warlike  as  its  commerce  grew,  and  Eng- 
land enlarged  her  equipment  for  war  with  the  expansion 
of  her  trade  routes.'^  In  view  of  such  historical  facts  as 
these  it  is  of  real  importance  to  discover,  if  possible, 
whether  the  power  to  wage  war  is  still  an  economic  ad- 
vantage. 

Even  a superficial  survey  of  the  conditions  which  now 
obtain  make  it  evident  that  there  remain  but  few  direct 
sources  of  gain  from  conquest.  Generally  speaking,  there 
have  been  three  such  sources  in  the  past:  confiscation, 
tribute,  and  indemnity.  Do  any  of  these  three  avenues 
lead  to  national  wealth  in  the  present  age  ? 

In  a day  when  private  property  is  inviolable,  except  for 
some  fair  equivalent,  and  little  public  property  is  portable, 
it  is  difficult  to  discover  wherein  a modern  power  could 
possibly  gain  any  appreciable  return  from  confiscation. 
The  only  public  wealth  which  could  be  seized  is  either 
in  the  form  of  buildings,  which  cannot  be  transported, 
or  of  paper  tokens  and  contracts  which  lose  their  value 
in  proportion  as  the  conditions  of  war  prevail.  The  value 
of  stocks  and  bonds  would  rapidly  depreciate  if  taken  as 
booty.  Moreover,  the  panic  caused  by  such  confiscation 
would  so  react  on  the  business  interests  of  the  conquer- 
ing power  as  to  amount  practically  to  economic  suicide. 
This  is  so  evident  that  modern  armies  usually  find  it  wiser 
to  pay  for  all  supplies  than  to  risk  the  economic  diffi- 
culties connected  with  confiscation. 


^ For  a full  discussion  of  this  subject  see  a pamphlet  published  in 
April,  1914,  by  the  American  Association  for  International  Concilia- 
tion, entitled  “Commerce  and  War,”  by  Professor  Alvin  Saunders 
Johnson,  of  Cornell  University. 


no  THE  CHRISTIAN  EQUIVALENT  OF  WAR 


The  successful  collection  of  tribute  in  the  present  day 
from  a conquered  people  has  become  equally  difficult.  In 
proportion  as  the  amount  of  tribute  exacted  is  large, 
burdensome,  and  humiliating,  in  that  very  proportion  does 
the  commerce  between  the  conquering  and  the  tribute 
nation  become  crippled.  Thus  a tribute  tends  to  dry  up 
some  of  the  otherwise  active  sources  of  national  wealth. 
Moreover,  as  the  wealth  of  a modern  nation  does  not  in- 
here in  its  government,  which  usually  carries  a heavy 
debt,  but  in  its  people,  any  course  of  action  which  will 
hinder  or  destroy  the  prosperity  of  the  people  must  also 
inevitably  weaken  the  financial  standing  of  the  govern- 
ment. 

As  for  indemnities,  there  are  those  who  point  to  the 
billion  dollar  indemnity  exacted  by  Germany  from  France 
at  the  close  of  the  Franco-Prussian  war  as  conclusive 
proof  that  there  are  wars  even  in  modern  times  which 
are  financially  profitable  to  the  victorious  nation.  But 
several  other  facts  will  need  to  be  taken  into  con- 
sideration before  we  are  quite  ready  to  accept  so  sweep- 
ing a conclusion.*  It  should  be  remembered,  for  instance, 
that  one  of  the  direct  results  of  the  Franco-Prussian  con- 
flict was  an  immediate  increase  in  the  German  army  of 
not  less  than  one  hundred  thousand  men.  The  cost  of 
maintaining  this  increase  alone  throughout  the  forty  odd 
years  which  have  elapsed  since  the  close  of  that  war  has 
more  than  counterbalanced  the  enormous  indemnity  which 
France  paid.  But  what  of  the  loss  to  German  markets 
from  devastation  of  French  territory  and  destruction  of 

For  an  interesting  discussion  of  the  economic  relations  between 
Germany  and  France,  see  “Arms  and  Industry,”  by  Norman  Angell, 
pp.  119-124. 


SUPPLEMENTARY  NOTES 


III 


French  life,  not  to  mention  the  general  disturbance  of  the 
markets  of  Europe?^ 

No  study  of  direct  profits,  however,  would  be  complete 
without  a consideration  of  direct  expenses.  But  the  cost 
of  war  is  so  obvious  as  to  make  statistical  details  su- 
perfluous. The  civilized  nations  of  the  world  in  time  of 
peace  spend  the  enormous  sum  of  two  and  a half  billions 
of  dollars  per  year®  on  preparations  for  war,  or  about 
two  dollars  per  capita  annually  for  every  man,  woman 
and  child  in  civilization.  And  what  is  more  costly:  mil- 
lions of  the  strongest-bodied  men  are  taken  from  produc- 
tive labor  to  become  the  coolies  of  militarism,  while  the 
talents  of  tens  of  thousands  of  the  best  trained  minds  are 
diverted  from  a multitude  of  enterprises  and  activities 
which  make  for  human  uplift,  to  be  concentrated  on  per- 
fecting the  science  and  art  of  human  destruction.  Who 
in  the  face  of  events  now  being  enacted  will  venture  to 
claim  that  war  is  economically  profitable  in  any  direct 
sense? 


Ill 

ARE  THE  BEST  ARMED  NATIONS  THE  MOST 
PROSPEROUS  COMMERCIALLY? 

If  strength  of  arms  be  the  secret  of  economic  prosper- 
ity, the  best  armed  nations  should  be  the  most  prosperous, 
and  conversely  those  weakest  in  armament  should  be  the 
least  successful  in  trade.  The  evidence  here  has  been 
well  summarized  by  Mr.  Angell  as  follows : 

^ For  statistical  and  other  evidence  that  Germany  suffered  greater 
financial  loss  from  the  war  than  did  her  vanquished  rival,  see  the 
chapter  on  The  Indemnity  Futility,  in  “The  Great  Illusion,”  pp.  88-106. 

* S«e  “The  Great  Illusion,”  p.  190. 


1 12  THE  CHRISTIAN  EQUIVALENT  OF  WAR 


“The  great  nations  of  Europe  do  not  destroy  the  trade 
of  the  small  nations  for  their  own  benefit,  because  they 
cannot;  and  the  Dutch  citizen,  whose  Government  pos- 
sesses no  military  power,  is  just  as  well  off  as  the  Ger- 
man citizen,  whose  government  possesses  an  army  of  two 
million  men,  and  a great  deal  better  off  than  the  Rus- 
sian, whose  government  possesses  an  army  of  something 
like  four  million.”  ‘ 

The  same  illuminating  writer  says  in  another  connec- 
tion: 

“If  a great  country  benefits  every  time  it  annexes  a 
province,  and  her  people  are  the  richer  for  the  widened 
territory,  the  small  nations  ought  to  be  immeasurably 
poorer  than  the  great,  instead  of  which,  by  every  test 
which  you  like  to  apply — public  credit,  amounts  in  savings 
banks,  standard  of  living,  social  progress,  general  well- 
being— citizens  of  small  States  are,  other  things  being 
equal,  as  well  off  as,  or  better  off  than,  the  citizens  of 
great  States.  The  citizens  of  countries  like  Holland,  Bel- 
gium, Denmark,  Sweden,  Norway  are,  by  every  possible 
test,  just  as  well  off  as  the  citizens  of  countries  like 
Germany,  Austria,  or  Russia.  These  are  the  facts  which 
are  so  much  more  potent  than  any  theory.  If  it  is  true 
that  a country  benefits  by  the  acquisition  of  territory,  and 
widened  territory  means  general  well-being,  why  do  the 
facts  so  eternally  deny  it?  There  is  something  wrong 
with  the  theory.”  * 

So  far  as  physical  comfort  is  concerned  a prominent 
statistician  ranks  the  small  and  comparatively  unprotected 
States  of  Europe  with  England  and  France  at  the  top 
of  the  list,  whereas  he  puts  Germany,  in  spite  of  her  great 


* “The  Great  Illusion,”  p.  35. 

2 In  “The  Great  Illusion,”  pp.  47,  48. 


SUPPLEMENTARY  NOTES 


113 

army,  sixth,  and  Russia,  whose  army  and  territory  is  the 
greatest  of  all,  at  the  very  bottom/ 

No  more  conclusive  evidence  of  the  fact  that  armies 
and  navies  do  not  constitute  a sure  guarantee  of  com- 
mercial prosperity  could  be  quoted  than  the  actions  of  in- 
vestors. As  a class  they  are  trained  to  act  not  from 
impulse  or  prejudice  but  from  a thoughtful  weighing  of 
evidence:  what  is  their  verdict?  They  unhesitatingly 
demand  higher  rates  of  interest  from  their  investments 
with  nations  which  are  heavily  armed  than  from  the 
smaller  and  weaker  nations. 


IV 

DO  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  SANCTIONS  OF  WAR 
STILL  HOLD? 

The  convictions  of  those  who  interpret  the  teaching 
of  Jesus  to  imply  an  attitude  of  complete  non-resistance 
is  well  illustrated  by  the  following:  “As  the  church 
under  a former  dispensation  had  divine  authority  for  en- 
gaging in  war,  it  is  important  to  ascertain  whether  this 
authority  was  abrogated  under  the  gospel  dispensation  or 
not.  That  many  things  have  been  tolerated  under  one 
dispensation  of  the  church  and  prohibited  under  another, 
most  Christians  allow.  That  the  preceptive  will  of  God 
is  to  be  our  only  rule  of  duty,  few  Christians  deny.  The 
knowledge  communicated  to  us  of  the  preceptive  will  of 
God  to  His  Church,  under  the  first  dispensation,  is  very 
limited.  We  find,  however,  no  authority  for  taking  the 


^ See  Mulhall,  in  “Industries  and  Wealth  of  Nations,”  p.  391. 


1 14  THE  CHRISTIAN  EQUIVALENT  OF  WAR 


life  of  man  in  any  case,  not  even  for  murder;  but,  on 
the  contrary,  a sevenfold  vengeance  was  pronounced  upon 
him  who  should  slay  the  murderer.  Under  the  patriarchal 
dispensation  he  that  shed  man’s  blood,  by  man  was  his 
blood  to  be  shed.  In  this,  defensive  war  was  tolerated. 
Under  the  Mosaic  dispensation,  not  only  defensive  but 
offensive  war  was  tolerated,  and  not  only  war  was  per- 
mitted, but  retaliation,  as  ‘an  eye  for  an  eye’;  ‘a  tooth 
for  a tooth’;  ‘life  for  life,’  etc. 

“The  question  to  be  decided  is  whether  these  regula- 
tions are  still  in  force,  or  whether  they  were  disannulled 
by  the  gospel  dispensation?  The  life  and  precepts  of 
our  Lord  and  His  disciples  while  under  the  unerring 
guidance  of  His  Spirit  must  be  our  only  authority  in  this 
inquiry.  That  many  things  were  done  away  by  the  gos- 
pel dispensation,  none  will  deny  who  believe  the  gospel. 
The  ceremonial  part,  which  was  only  a shadow  of  good 
things  to  come,  vanished  away  when  the  substance  ap- 
peared; and  not  only  the  ceremonial  part  was  abolished, 
but  many  other  practices.  Polygamy  was  permitted  under 
the  law,  but  forbidden  under  the  gospel.  Divorce  was 
allowed  under  the  Mosaic  but  prohibited  under  the  gospel 
dispensation,  except  in  the  case  of  adultery.  Under  the 
Mosaic  dispensation  the  penalty  for  whoredom  was 
stoning  to  death.  This  penalty  was  not  enforced  under 
the  gospel  dispensation,  as  may  be  seen  in  John  viii.  ii. 
That  all  kinds  of  war,  revenge,  and  fighting  were  utterly 
prohibited  under  the  gospel  dispensation  we  think  appears 
evident,  not  only  from  the  life  of  our  glorious  Mediator 
but  from  His  express  precepts.  Jesus  answered,  ‘My 
kingdom  is  not  of  this  world:  if  my  kingdom  were  of 
this  world,  then  would  my  servants  fight,  that  I should 
not  be  delivered  to  the  Jews.’  No  comment  can  add  force 


SUPPLEMENTARY  NOTES 


115 

to  this  passage,  for  it  is  apprehended  that  no  language 
can  be  more  explicit  against  defensive  war. 

“In  Christ’s  Sermon  on  the  Mount  he  quoted  a passage 
from  Exodus,  ‘Ye  have  heard  that  it  hath  been  said,  An 
eye  for  an  eye,  and  a tooth  for  a tooth:  but  I say  unto 
you.  That  ye  resist  not  evil:  but  whosoever  shall  smite 
thee  on  thy  right  cheek,  turn  to  him  the  other  also.’  The 
force  of  this  passage  has  generally  been  obviated  by  say- 
ing that  we  are  not  to  take  all  the  words  of  our  Lord 
literally.  Although  this  is  admitted,  yet  we  are  absolutely 
bound  to  take  the  spirit  of  every  word,  if  we  can  under- 
stand them,  by  comparing  Scriptures  with  Scriptures. 
That  the  spirit  of  this  passage  is  directly  opposed  to  that 
of  the  one  our  Lord  quoted  from  Exodus,  we  think  cannot 
fairly  be  denied;  and,  of  course,  it  disannulled  it,  for  He 
who  had  power  to  make  laws  under  one  dispensation  had 
power  to  abrogate  them  under  another. 

“The  blessed  Mediator  did,  in  the  most  explicit  man- 
ner, command  His  subjects  to  love  their  enemies  and 
render  good  for  evil.  This  command,  we  are  of  opinion, 
is  totally  incompatible  with  resisting  them  with  carnal 
weapons.  He  says,  ‘But  I say  unto  you  which  hear. 
Love  your  enemies,  do  good  to  them  which  hate  you, 
and  pray  for  them  which  despitefully  use  you.’  Let  us 
for  one  moment  compare  this  precept  with  defensive  war 
and  see  if  it  can  consistently  be  put  into  practice.  Sup- 
pose our  country  is  invaded  and  a professed  disciple  of 
the  Prince  of  Peace  buckles  on  the  harness  and  takes 
the  field  to  repel  by  the  point  of  the  sword  his  enemy. 
He  advances  amidst  the  lamentations  of  the  wounded  and 
the  shrieks  of  the  dying  to  meet  his  foe  in  arms.  He 
sees  his  wrath  kindled  and  his  spear  uplifted,  and  in  this 
trying  moment  he  hears  his  Lord  say,  ‘Love  your  enemy 


ii6  THE  CHRISTIAN  EQUIVALENT  OF  WAR 


and  render  to  him  good  for  evil’;  and  his  kindness  to 
him  is  like  Joab’s  to  Amasa;  he  thrusts  him  through  the 
heart  and  hurries  him  to  the  awful  tribunal  of  his  Judge, 
probably  unprepared.  Dear  brethren,  be  not  deceived; 
for  God  is  not  mocked.  Who  amongst  our  fellow-men 
would  receive  the  thrust  of  a sword  as  an  act  of  kind- 
ness? Only  let  conscience  do  its  office,  and  there  will 
be  no  difficulty  in  deciding  whether  defensive  war  is  in- 
consistent with  the  gospel  dispensation  or  not.  Carnal 
and  spiritual  weapons  will  no  more  unite  under  the  gospel 
dispensation  than  iron  and  miry  clay. 

“Our  very  salvation  depends  on  being  possessed  of  a 
spirit  of  forgiveness  to  enemies.  Tf  ye  forgive  not  men 
their  trespasses,  neither  will  your  Father  forgive  your 
trespasses.’  If  men  invade  our  rights  and  trespass  upon 
our  privileges,  is  it  forgiveness  to  repel  them  at  the  point 
of  the  bayonet?  The  honest  Christian  will  find  no  diffi- 
culty in  conscientiously  deciding  this  question,  notwith- 
standing he  may  be  slow  of  heart  in  believing  all  that  is 
written.”  ^ 


V 

RELATION  OF  THE  ECONOMIC  TO  THE  ETHI- 
CAL ASPECT  OF  WAR 

Inasmuch  as  it  deals  not  with  the  moral  and  spiritual 
interests  of  man,  but  rather  with  his  material  well-being, 
the  economic  argument  is  of  subordinate  importance  to 
the  ethical  and  religious  arguments.  This  concession, 


David  Low  Dodge,  “War  Inconsistent  with  the  Religion  of  Jesus 
Christ,”  pp.  141-144. 


SUPPLEMENTARY  NOTES 


117 


however,  does  not  imply  that  any  discussion  based  on 
man’s  material  interests  is  necessarily  selfish.  We  are 
dealing  with  a force  in  human  society  which  has  a direct 
bearing  on  the  comfort  and  well-being  of  vast  numbers 
of  people.  If  war  brings  hardship  and  poverty  to  hun- 
dreds of  thousands  of  people,  it  is  surely  a social  obliga- 
tion to  consider  wherein  and  to  what  extent  the  economic 
evils  of  war  can  be  averted.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  war 
stimulates  the  commercial  prosperity  of  a nation,  it  is 
equally  a social  duty  to  consider  in  what  ways  this  pros- 
perity may  be  increased  without  disproportionately  in- 
creasing the  attendant  suffering  involved  in  war. 

When  economics  is  made  to  include  the  welfare  of  all 
the  people,  it  carries  with  it  implications  that  are  ethical. 
Two  extreme  views,  however,  meet  us  at  the  outset  of 
our  enquiry:  that  held  by  prominent  pacifists  of  the 
new  school  who  consider  the  moral  argument  inadequate, 
if  not  irrelevant ; and  that  taken  by  leading  militarists,  as 
well  as  by  a majority  of  pacifists,  who  regard  the  eco- 
nomic argument  as  utterly  unworthy,  if  not  futile. 

The  former  attitude  is  illustrated  in  Mr.  Angell,  who 
declares  that  the  common  sense  of  ordinary  humanity 
does  not  follow  the  peace  advocate  who  pleads  that  we 
have  no  right  to  take  by  force.  In  proof  of  this  Mr. 
Angell  cites  the  commonly  accepted  standards  which  ob- 
tain in  the  commercial  world,  leading  men  to  take  advan- 
tage of  the  weaknesses  of  their  fellow-men  to  undermine 
and  undersell.  Since  competition  in  business  causes  as 
real  suffering  as  does  war,  and  yet  is  justified  in  the  eyes 
of  men  generally,  why  should  competition  between  na- 
tions be  ethically  condemned?  “I  have  never,  indeed, 
taken  the  ground,”  Mr.  Angell  adds,  “that  the  defender 
of  war  is  morally  inferior  to  the  defender  of  peace,  or 


Ii8  THE  CHRISTIAN  EQUIVALENT  OF  WAR 


that  much  is  to  be  gained  by  emphasizing  the  moral  su- 
periority of  the  peace  ideal.  . . . The  emotion  of 
humanity  repelling  it  from  war  may  be  more  than  coun- 
teracted by  the  equally  strong  moral  emotion  that  we 
connect  with  patriotism.  The  patriot  admits  that  war 
may  occasion  suffering,  but  urges  that  men  should  b* * 
prepared  to  endure  suffering  for  their  country.”  ‘ 

The  other  view  is  held  by  such  militarists  as  the  late 
Admiral  Mahan,  who  said:  “So  far  as  the  advocacy  of 
Peace  rests  upon  material  motives  like  economy  or  pros- 
perity, it  is  the  service  of  Mammon;  and  the  bottom  of 
the  platform  will  drop  out  when  Mammon  thinks  that 
War  will  pay  better.”  “ There  are  also  many  pacifists 
who  take  a similar  attitude,  as,  for  instance.  Canon  Grane, 
who  declares,  “I  am  convinced  that  the  ethical  and  spir- 
itual aspects  of  the  paramount  claim  of  Peace  carry  the 
subject  into  deeper  currents  of  our  nature,  come  closer 
to  the  springs  of  volition,  and  are  more  likely  to  be  felt 
finally  imperative  than  the  aspect  which  is  mainly  eco- 
nomic.” “ 

The  conditions  which  have  impelled  some  to  think 
deeply  on  the  economic  aspect  of  the  case  seem  to  be 
the  very  ones  which  have  driven  others  to  more  con- 
clusive thoughts  regarding  the  ethics  of  the  subject.  With 
both  classes  the  outstanding  phenomenon  has  been  the 
greatly  increased  intimacy  and  complexity  of  human  re- 
lationships. This  has  meant  to  the  one  group  a greater 
economic  interdependence  and  therefore  the  futility  of 
mutual  fighting;  and  to  the  other  group  an  intensification 
of  the  ethical  obligations  between  man  and  man;  and 


^Norman  Angell,  “The  Great  Illusion,”  p.  169;  cf.  also  pp.  g-ia. 
“ Quoted  in  “The  Passing  of  War,”  p.  3. 

• W.  L.  Crane,  “The  Passing  of  War,"  p.  s- 


SUPPLEMENTARY  NOTES 


119 

therefore  the  conviction  that  “the  outcome,”  to  use  the 
words  of  Professor  Bosworth,  “will  be  determined  by 
the  character  of  the  men  concerned  in  the  crisis.”  * What- 
ever view  may  be  taken  of  the  relative  importance  of  the 
economic  and  ethical  arguments  it  is  at  least  evident  that 
modern  social  conditions  have  greatly  affected  both  as- 
pects of  the  subject. 


VI 

RELATION  OF  MAN’S  STRUGGLE  WITH  NATURE 
TO  HIS  STRUGGLE  WITH  FELLOW-MAN 

Man’s  use  of  force  has  chiefly  been  in  two  directions: 
in  his  struggle  with  nature  and  against  his  fellow-man. 
Against  nature  he  has  developed  an  increased  ability  to 
apply  it  effectively  through  the  substitution  of  machin- 
ery for  mere  muscle.  Aristotle  foresaw,  though  dimly, 
the  necessary  connection  between  man’s  struggle  with 
nature  and  his  use  of  force  against  his  fellow-man,  when 
he  said:  “If  the  hammer  and  the  shuttle  could  move 
themselves,  slavery  would  be  unnecessary.”  But  men 
generally  have  failed  at  the  time  to  realize  the  real  bear- 
ings of  each  step  in  their  advance  towards  gaining  con- 
trol over  natural  forces. 

Printing  was  at  first  looked  upon  as  merely  a new- 
fangled idea  by  which  a great  many  monks  and  scribes 
were  thrown  out  of  employment.  But  did  any  then 
realize  that  by  the  simple  invention  of  movable  type  a 
power  greater  than  that  of  empires  had  been  released? 
Men  in  the  mass  could  not  rise  above  the  limitations  of 


‘Edward  Increase  Bosworth,  "A  Call  for  Character,”  p.  8. 


120  THE  CHRISTIAN  EQUIVALENT  OF  WAR 


superstition  and  ignorance  until  the  accessibility  of  the 
printed  page  made  cooperation  in  larger  things  possible 
by  helping  to  usher  in  the  day  of  individual  liberty  and 
of  democratic  fraternity.  In  fact  the  more  man  has  suc- 
ceeded in  his  struggle  with  nature,  the  less  has  he  con- 
tended against  his  fellow-man,  for  the  simple  reason  that 
with  each  success  in  the  struggle  against  nature  human 
society  has  become  a completer  organism.  Each  part 
being,  therefore,  more  dependent  on  the  other  parts,  can- 
not afford  to  inflict  injury  on  them.  This  has  meant  a 
steady  impulse  to  redirect  human  pugnacity  away  from 
men  towards  the  complete  subjugation  of  nature.* 


VII 

WILLIAM  PENN’S  HOLY  EXPERIMENT  IN  CIVIL 
GOVERNMENT 

In  this  connection  the  experiment  of  William  Penn  is 
of  real  interest.  The  following  are  the  words  of  Benja- 
min F.  Trueblood  at  a Public  Commemorative  Service 
held  in  Association  Hall,  Philadelphia,  December  14, 
1894,  on  the  occasion  of  the  placing  of  the  Statue  of 
William  Penn  on  the  City  Hall: 

“It  was  a ‘holy  experiment’  because  it  was  founded  in 
love,  built  up  on  the  principles  which  love  dictates,  and 
carried  forward  in  the  faith  which  is  inspired  and  sus- 
tained by  love.  . . . Not  only  is  William  Penn’s  his- 
tory incomparably  clear,  but  it  is  also  clearly  unlike  any 
other  piece  of  human  history.  In  its  grasp  of  the  princi- 


^ Cf.  Norman  Angell,  “The  Great  Illusion,”  p.  279. 


SUPPLEMENTARY  NOTES 


I2I 


pies  of  liberty,  equality,  and  brotherhood,  and  of  the 
secret  of  their  successful  establishment  among  men,  and 
particularly  in  its  heroic  application  of  these  principles 
and  of  this  secret  in  the  constitution  and  government  of  a 
Commonwealth,  it  stands  apart  an  absolutely  unique  chap- 
ter in  the  history  of  men  and  of  States.  . . . 

“William  Penn  was  born  and  reared  a soldier.  His 
ancestry  for  two  generations  had  been  men  of  war.  But 
for  the  miracle  of  grace  which  converted  him  to  pure 
New  Testament  Christianity  and  subdued  the  fighting  na- 
ture within  him,  he  would  most  probably  have  become 
the  admiral  of  an  English  fleet  or  the  commander  of  an 
army.  He  had,  therefore,  as  the  divinely  appointed 
prophet  and  leader  of  a new  age,  to  break  not  only  with 
his  time  but  also  with  his  own  flesh  and  blood.  . . . 
His  purpose  in  buying  of  the  king  lands  here  in  America 
and  in  preparing  a charter  for  the  government  of  the 
colony  which  he  was  proposing  to  plant,  was  that  he 
might  establish  a Christian  State,  based  from  the  start 
on  Christian  principles,  created  and  directed  in  the  spirit 
of  Christian  love,  a State  in  which  the  governing  and 
the  governed  might  realize  together  the  blessings  of  the 
brotherhood  taught  by  Jesus  Christ.  It  is  true  that  Penn 
went  further  in  the  principles  of  pure  democracy  than 
was  the  case  in  the  other  colonies,  but  he  did  this  for 
the  same  reason  that  led  him  to  banish  the  sword,  and 
there  were  not  a few  occasions  in  the  early  history  of 
the  colony  when  the  absence  of  the  sword  proved  to  be 
the  greatest  safeguard  of  the  liberties  of  the  infant 
democracy. 

“He  loved  his  Commonwealth,  and  gave  himself  for  it. 
He  might  have  built  up  a colossal  fortune  through  his 
proprietary  rights,  the  granting  of  monopolies  and  re- 


122  THE  CHRISTIAN  EQUIVALENT  OF  WAR 


strictions  on  trade.  But  he  resisted  all  the  seductions  of 
wealth,  that  others  might  be  free  and  happy  and  pros- 
perous. He  was  true  to  his  promise  that  the  colony 
should  be  free  and  self-governing.  His  powers  as  gov- 
ernor he  allowed  to  be  gradually  restricted  that  neither 
he  nor  any  of  his  successors  might  ever  be  able  to  work 
mischief.  . . . He  kept  his  purpose  that  no  soldier  or 
emblem  of  war  should,  by  his  authority,  be  seen  in  the 
Commonwealth.  Even  his  police,  when  there  were  any, 
he  did  not  arm.  . . . 

“The  peace  experiment  was  successful  for  seventy  years, 
though  a considerable  part  of  the  colony  always  opposed 
it  and  clamored  for  arms.  Seventy  years  of  peace  in 
the  turbulent  atmosphere  of  that  time  meant  much  more 
than  it  would  mean  now,  and  is  as  near  a demonstration 
as  anything  short  of  actual  trial  could  be  that  the  same 
thing  might  be  done  again  by  any  State  or  nation  whose 
people  were  convinced  that  it  ought  to  be  done,  and 
which  had  the  courage  to  try  it.  . . . Civilization  is 
plodding  slowly,  surely  upward  along  the  lines  marked 
out  by  him  whose  work  we  commemorate  tonight,  and 
all  nations  will  one  day  drop  their  armor,  disband  their 
armies,  call  home  their  sea-dogs,  and  rule  thereafter  by 
love  and  moral  force  alone.” 

The  Gentleman’s  Magazine  for  October,  1902,  contains 
a detailed  description  by  E.  E.  Taylor  of  William  Penn’s 
experiment : 

“William  Penn  had  three  leading  objects  in  essaying 
this  ‘holy  experiment’:  to  set  up  an  example  to  the  na- 
tions; to  afford  an  asylum  to  his  persecuted  fellow- 
religionists  and  to  all  unsettled  Nonconformists  in  a 
‘free  colony  for  all  mankind’,  and  to  exercise  perfect 
justice  in  his  dealings  with  the  poor  Indians. 


SUPPLEMENTARY  NOTES 


123 


“Various  measures  were  at  once  taken  to  make  the 
new  colony  known,  and  in  July,  1681,  there  appeared  the 
first  ‘deed  of  settlement.’  . . . The  document  con- 
sists of  twenty  short  clauses,  designed  to  guide  the  first 
steps  of  the  young  colony  without  hindering  legitimate 
growth;  it  is  remarkable  for  the  Proprietor’s  endeavor  to 
prevent  large  areas  of  land  getting  into  the  hands  of  a 
few  men  who  would  simply  hold  and  not  develop,  and 
for  his  insistence  upon  the  equal  rights  possessed  by  the 
Indian  and  the  white  settler.  . . . All  differences  be- 
tween planter  and  natives  were  to  be  settled  by  six  of 
each  class  sitting  together.  Of  himself  Penn  said:  ‘I 
propose  to  leave  myself  and  successors  no  power  of  doing 
mischief,  that  the  will  of  one  man  may  not  hinder  the 
good  of  a whole  country.’  . . . 

“In  October,  1682,  Penn  landed  at  Newcastle  amid 
great  demonstrations  of  joy.  . . . Then  the  great 
law  of  Pennsylvania  was  formally  passed.  . . . 
Penn’s  complete  inability  to  discover  the  right  men  for 
the  responsible  positions  at  the  head  of  his  government 
seriously  affected  the  progress  of  the  new  colony,  espe- 
cially during  his  long  absences  from  it.  . . . But  the 
final  blow  to  the  colony  came  as  the  result  of  the  Quaker 
objection  to  the  provision  and  use  of  arms.  The  colony 
was  asked  by  the  Crown  to  contribute  money  for  this 
purpose  and  refused.  This,  coupled  with  the  unsettle- 
ment consequent  upon  recent  events  . . . caused  the 
withdrawal  of  the  government  from  Penn  in  1692.  Two 
years  later,  however,  the  governorship  was  restored,  on 
the  colony  promising  to  provide  money  and  men  for  the 
defence  of  the  frontiers.  . . . He  . . . returned 
to  Europe  in  1701,  in  order  to  appear  before  the  Lords, 
who  wished  to  convert  the  Provinces  and  Territories  into 


124  THE  CHRISTIAN  EQUIVALENT  OF  WAR 


Crown  colonies.  From  this  time,  with  exceptions,  to 
1718,  when  the  Proprietor’s  death  occurred,  the  colony 
proved  a heavy  weight  on  his  shoulders. 

“But  Penn’s  comparative  failure  proved  the  starting- 
point  for  other  notable  achievements;  while  he  showed 
that  ‘he  belonged  to  the  rarer  and  nobler  type  of  gov- 
erning men  who  see  the  golden  side,  who  count  faith, 
piety,  hope,  among  the  counsels  of  practical  wisdom,  and 
who,  for  political  power,  must  ever  seek  a moral  basis.’  * 
Much  might  be  said  of  the  rapid  growth  of  Pennsylvania 
and  of  its  capital  by  way  of  illustrating  the  sure  founda- 
tion Penn  laid  for  his  country’s  prosperity.® 

“From  1701  to  1719  there  was  little  unsettlement  with 
the  Indians.  It  is  clear  that  the  whole  government  of 
Penn  considered  it  their  emphatic  interest  to  maintain 
warm  friendship  with  the  Indians,  although  when  it 
served  their  purpose  they  would  grumble  at  the  ‘great 
expense’  caused  their  colony  by  the  maintenance  of  the 
alliance. 

“The  virtual  termination  of  the  covenant,  with  the 
commencement  of  the  Indian  war  in  1754,  was  due  to 
plain  causes,  the  chief  of  which  was  no  doubt  the  very 
small  representation  in  the  government  held  by  the 
Quakers  (they  lost  effective  control  in  1756)  , , . 

“The  history  of  Penn’s  relations  with  the  Indians  is 
not  complete  without  a reference  to  the  estimation  in 
which  they  held  him  personally.  This  is,  of  course,  most 
eloquently  shown  by  the  seventy-four  years  of  active 
friendship  existing  between  the  two  peoples.  Indeed,  this 


^ John  Morley  on  Oliver  Cromwell. 

“ “Pennsylvania  became  the  most  consistently  free  colony  in  the 
country,  the  most  consistently  prosperous,  the  most  rapid  in  its  growth 
in  freedom  and  prosperity.  So  nearly  had  the  inhabitants  everything 
that  they  could  desire  that  they  hesitated  to  take  up  the  revolutionary 
cause  in  1775.”  “A  Quaker  Experiment  in  Government,”  J.  Sharpless. 


SUPPLEMENTARY  NOTES 


125 


period  may  be  indefinitely  prolonged  if  the  Quakers  only 
are  concerned;  for  it  is  a striking  fact  that  when  a state 
of  war  at  last  existed  between  the  Indians  and  the  colony, 
no  true  Quaker  was  disturbed.  If  a so-called  Quaker  took 
to  a gun,  why,  then,  not  being  acquainted  with  him  per- 
sonally, the  Indians  treated  him  as  an  enemy,  knowing 
‘that  the  Quakers  would  not  fight  nor  do  them  any 
harm.’  ” * 

Penn’s  high  policy  of  basing  his  relations  with  the  na- 
tive tribes  of  North  America  upon  the  natural  rights  of 
all  mankind — not  upon  the  supposed  interests  of  trade — 
is  thus  shown,  by  a contemplation  of  its  fruits,  to  have 
been  amply  justified.  For  the  times  it  was  a bold  and 
original  attempt;  its  final  success  is  honorable  to  him 
who  conceived  the  project,  and  is  pregnant  with  lessons 
for  the  present  generation. 


VIII 

WAR  AND  THE  EXPANSION  OF  TRADE 

The  contention  that  a modern  government  can  directly 
profit  by  war  is  supported  by  evidence  so  palpably  in- 
complete that  militarists  themselves  have  largely  ceased 
to  press  it.  They  fall  back,  however,  on  the  broader  as- 
sumption that  war  is  necessary  for  the  protection  and 
expansion  of  trade.  Grand  Admiral  von  Koster,  of  Ger- 
many, expressed  such  a conviction,  when  he  said:  “The 


^ In  1776  Chalkley,  an  English  Quaker,  who  travelled  extensively  in 
and  around  Pennsylvania,  was  able  to  declare,  from  the  evidence  he 
had  gathered,  that  during  the  Indian  raids  in  other  parts  of  the  New 
England  States,  among  the  many  hundreds  slain  only  three  Friends 
were  killed,  and  these  because  they  took  up  arms. 


126  THE  CHRISTIAN  EQUIVALENT  OF  WAR 


steady  increase  of  our  population  compels  us  to  devote 
special  attention  to  the  growth  of  our  overseas  interests. 
Nothing  but  the  strong  fulfilment  of  our  naval  program 
can  create  for  us  that  importance  upon  the  free-world-sea 
which  it  is  incumbent  upon  us  to  demand.  The  steady  in- 
crease of  our  population  compels  us  to  set  ourselves  new 
goals  and  to  grow  from  a Continental  into  a world  power. 
Our  mighty  industry  must  aspire  to  new  overseas  con- 
quests.” ' 

Comte  de  Gartden,  of  France,  gave  expression  to  a 
similar  sentiment  in  these  words:  “Every  State  in  its 
external  relations  has,  and  can  have,  no  other  maxims 
than  these:  whoever,  by  the  superiority  of  his  forces 
and  by  his  geographic  position,  can  do  us  harm  is  our 
natural  enemy;  whoever  cannot  do  us  harm,  but  can,  by 
the  extent  of  his  forces  and  by  the  position  he  occupies, 
do  injury  to  our  enemy,  is  our  natural  friend.”’  A dis- 
tinguished American  ambassador,  whose  service  abroad 
gave  him  peculiar  opportunities  to  study  political  problems 
declares : “The  assumption  which  lies  at  the  foundation 
of  classic  diplomacy  is  that  every  State  is  seeking  to 
appropriate  for  itself  everything  in  the  world  that  pos- 
sesses value,  and  is  restrained  from  actually  doing  so 
only  by  the  resistance  it  may  encounter.”  * 

The  English  author  of  a recent  book  entitled  “The 
Struggle  for  Bread,”  puts  the  same  doctrine  still  more 
emphatically  thus:  “You  cannot  abolish  war  from  a 
competitive  system  of  civilization;  competition  is  the  root- 
basis  of  such  a system  of  civilization,  and  competition  is 
war.  When  a business  firm  crushes  a trade-rival  from 


* Quoted  in  “The  Great  Illusion,”  p.  20. 

‘ Quoted  in  “Arms  and  Industry,”  pp.  38,  39. 

® David  Jayne  Hill,  quoted  in  “Arms  and  Industry,”  p.  38. 


SUPPLEMENTARY  NOTES 


127 


the  markets  by  cut-prices  there  is  exactly  the  same 
process  at  work  as  when  a business-nation  crushes  a 
trade-rival  by  physical  force.  The  means  vary,  but  the 
end  in  view  and  the  ethical  principles  in  question  are 
identical.  In  both  cases  the  weaker  goes  to  the  wall;  in 
both  cases  it  is  woe  to  the  vanquished.”  ‘ The  same 
author  says:  “The  teaching  of  all  history  is  that  com- 
merce grows  under  the  shadow  of  armed  strength.  Every 
war  which  we  have  waged  from  the  days  of  Cromwell  to 
the  present  has  been  to  protect  British  commerce.”  * 

The  claim  that  history  proves  that  the  commercial  pros- 
perity depends  upon  strength  of  arms,  would  be  relevant 
only  if  the  arguments  adduced  gave  full  weight  to  the 
revolutionary  change  in  economic  conditions  which  has 
taken  place  within  the  past  century.  Science  and  inven- 
tion have  produced  a mutual  interdependence  that  is  daily 
becoming  more  complex.  A banking  system  adapted  to 
the  new  conditions  has  been  evolved  which  provides  the 
sensory  nerves  of  internationalism,  so  that  today  a dis- 
turbance of  economic  conditions  in  the  remotest  part  of 
the  world  is  immediately  felt  everywhere  else.  It  would, 
therefore,  be  a digression  to  discuss  any  but  the  most 
recent  historical  facts  bearing  upon  the  relation  of  war  to 
commerce. 

The  world  has  long  recognized  the  fact  that  moral  and 
intellectual  ideas  are  in  no  sense  limited  by  political 
boundaries.  The  discoveries  of  science  become  almost 
immediately  the  common  property  of  all  men,  and  no 
nation  deems  it  to  its  interest  to  keep  secret  from  other 
nations  the  achievements  of  her  scholars.  In  the  moral 
realm  civilized  nations  tolerate  no  political  barriers  to 


* Rifleman,  “The  Struggle  for  Bread,”  p.  209. 
^ Rifleman,  “The  Struggle  for  Bread,”  p.  145. 


128  THE  CHRISTIAN  EQUIVALENT  OF  WAR 


the  propagation  of  ethical  and  spiritual  ideals.  In  like 
manner,  though  not  so  promptly,  have  men  gradually 
come  to  realize  that  the  boundary  lines  of  commercial  and 
industrial  prosperity  also  fail  to  coincide  with  the  great 
political  divisions  of  the  world. 

The  basic  fact  which  has  brought  about  this  inter- 
dependence of  humanity  is  division  of  labor.  Organized 
society  would  be  impossible  without  it.  While  at  one  time 
communities  were  quite  independent  of  each  other,  they 
have  gradually  found  it  more  advantageous  to  divide  their 
labor  and  thus  exchange  with  one  another  the  necessities 
of  life.  And  so  no  nation  in  the  present  day  is  entirely 
self-contained,  and  to  the  degree  that  it  is  dependent 
upon  others,  to  that  degree  does  it  find  it  unprofitable  to 
injure  its  neighbors. 

An  American  manufacturer  may  lose  his  trade  by  the 
competition  of  another  American  as  quickly  as  by  that 
of  a German  or  British  manufacturer.  The  business  of 
the  world  is  so  completely  international  that  no  single 
nation  can  secure  complete  control  over  any  line  of  busi- 
ness through  mere  political  influence.  The  capture  of 
trade  is  just  as  possible  without  political  influence  as 
with  it.  As  Professor  Saunders,  of  Cornell  University, 
puts  it,  “There  is  no  power  in  national  governments  suffi- 
ciently great  to  hold  in  check  the  modern  tendency  toward 
an  order  of  universal  economics.”* 

If  strength  of  arms  were  the  secret  of  economic  pros- 
perity, the  best  armed  nations  should  be  the  most  pros- 
perous, and  those  weakest  in  armament  should  be  the  least 
successful  in  trade.  But  a study  of  statistics  will  show 
that  the  citizens  of  the  small  and  comparatively  unpro- 

^ See  “International  Conciliation”  for  April  -1914,  article  on  Com- 
merce and  War,  p.  3. 


SUPPLEMENTARY  NOTES 


129 


tected  nations  of  Europe  had,  up  to  the  recent  war,  a 
greater  per  capita  wealth  than  those  of  Germany  and 
Russia/  Investors,  too,  have  shown  a decided  preference 
for  securities  in  the  countries  with  proportionately  small 
armaments/ 

The  facts  of  modern  commercial  life,  therefore,  reveal 
the  growing  interdependence  of  mankind.  No  nation  is 
sufficient  unto  itself.  War  against  a neighboring  nation 
is  more  than  fratricidal;  it  is  also,  in  part  at  least,  a 
suicidal  act.  The  spirit  of  war  is  fundamentally  opposed 
to  the  trend  of  economic  history. 


IX 

INTERNATIONAL  TRADE  NOT  ORGANIZED  IN 
NATIONAL  UNITS 

The  complexity  of  the  world’s  economic  relationships 
and  their  utter  disregard  of  political  boundaries  is 
graphically  illustrated  by  Mr.  Angell  as  follows : “A  Bir- 
mingham ironmaster  sells  his  engines  to  a Brazilian 
coffee-planter,  who  is  able  to  buy  them  because  he  sells 
his  coffee  to  a merchant  in  Havre,  who  sells  it  to  a 
Westphalian  town  manufacturing  rails  for  Siberia,  which 
buys  them  because  peasants  are  growing  wheat  as  the 
result  of  a demand  in  Lancashire,  which  is  manufactur- 
ing cotton  for  Indian  coolies  growing  tea  for  sheep- 
farmers  in  Australia,  who  are  able  to  buy  it  because 
they  sell  wool  to  a Bradford  merchant,  who  manufactures 
it  because  he  is  able  to  sell  cloth  to  a petroleum-refiner 


* Cf.  Mulhall,  “Industries  and  Wealth  of  Nations,”  p.  391. 
® Cf.  Norman  Angell,  “The  Great  Illusion,”  pp.  36-38. 


130  THE  CHRISTIAN  EQUIVALENT  OF  WAR 


in  Baku,  who  is  able  to  buy  clothing  because  he  is  sell- 
ing petrol  to  the  users  of  automobiles  in  Paris.  How  can 
such  an  operation,  which  is  typical  of  most  international 
trade,  be  described  as  the  competition  of  rival  units — such 
as  Great  Britain,  Germany,  France,  Brazil,  or  Russia?”* 


X 

THE  GROWING  DESIRE  FOR  ARBITRATION 

Not  alone  in  the  more  limited  social  relationships  of 
life  is  the  progressive  subsidence  of  physical  conflict  an 
evident  fact,  but  even  in  international  relationships  we 
can  scarcely  fail  to  discover,  in  spite  of  the  recent  recru- 
descence of  war,  many  undeniable  signs  of  advance  in  the 
same  direction.  Chief  among  these  signs  are  those  which 
illustrate  in  one  way  or  another  the  rapidly  growing  sen- 
timent in  favor  of  arbitration.  Many  international  dis- 
putes have  already  been  satisfactorily  settled  by  arbi- 
tration. During  the  nineteenth  century  two  hundred  and 
twelve  arbitral  awards  were  made  and  not  a single  de- 
cision was  repudiated  by  either  side  in  the  dispute.  While 
it  is  doubtless  true  that  many  of  these  disputes,  had  they 
remained  unsettled,  would  scarcely  have  led  to  war,  yet 
some  had  already  brought  the  countries  involved  to  the 
very  verge  of  war.  Arbitration  between  Great  Britain 
and  the  United  States  has  at  least  twice  in  the  past  fifty 
years  prevented  war;  in  the  case  of  the  Alabama  claims, 
settled  in  1872,  and  the  Venezuela  intervention,  settled  in 
1896,  the  passion  for  war  in  both  countries  was  strong. 


^ Norman  Angell,  “Arms  and  Industry,”  pp.  23,  24. 


SUPPLEMENTARY  NOTES 


131 

Yet  reason  and  conscience  triumphed  and  both  peace  and 
friendliness  have  prevailed. 

A striking  illustration  of  the  changing  sentiment  in  re- 
gard to  arbitration  is  shown  in  the  attitude  of  Lord  Salis- 
bury at  two  different  periods  in  his  career.  In  speaking 
of  the  Alabama  arbitration,  on  March  3,  1873,  he  said: 
“I  am  afraid  that,  like  competitive  examinations  and  sew- 
age irrigation,  arbitration  is  one  of  the  famous  nostrums 
of  the  age.  Like  them  it  will  have  its  day  and  will  pass 
away,  and  future  ages  will  look  with  pity  and  contempt 
on  those  who  could  have  believed  in  such  an  expedient 
for  bridling  the  ferocity  of  human  passions.”  Less  than 
twenty  years  later  the  same  leader  in  another  speech  dur- 
ing the  summer  of  1892  said:  “After  all,  the  great  tri- 
umph of  civilization  in  the  past  has  been  in  the  substitu- 
tion of  judicial  termination  for  the  cold,  cruel,  crude  ar- 
bitrament of  war.  We  have  got  rid  of  private  war  be- 
tween small  magnate  and  small  magnate.  In  this  country 
we  have  got  rid  of  the  duel  between  man  and  man.  We 
are  slowly,  as  far  as  we  can,  substituting  arbitrament 
for  struggles  in  international  disputes.”  ‘ 

Professor  Hull  tells  us  that  the  history  of  arbitration 
begins,  practically,  with  the  arbitration  clauses  in  the  Jay 
treaty  of  1794  between  the  United  States  and  Great 
Britain,  in  accordance  with  which  the  northeast  boundary 
line  of  the  United  States  was  submitted  to  arbitration 
in  1796.  During  the  century  and  a quarter  which  fol- 
lowed, there  have  been  settled  by  arbitration  eight  differ- 
ent boundary  disputes  between  the  United  States  and  Can- 
ada, and  all  without  a single  fort  at  any  point  along  the 
nearly  four  thousand  miles  of  frontier  which  divides  the 
two  nations.  Eleven  other  disputes  between  th«  United 


* Quoted  IB  “The  New  Peace  Hovemeat,”  p.  151. 


132  THE  CHRISTIAN  EQUIVALENT  OF  WAR 


States  and  Canada  have  also  been  referred  to  arbitral  set- 
tlement, and  brought  to  a successful  conclusion,  among 
which  have  been  several  questions  of  grave  importance, 
affecting  the  honor  and  vital  interests  of  both  parties. 
The  settlement  by  the  Hague  Court  of  the  North  Atlantic 
Coast  Fisheries  case  in  1910  is  a shining  illustration  of  the 
ease  with  which  judicial  procedure  was  able  to  put  a 
quietus  upon  a controversy  which  had  vexed  the  chan- 
nels of  diplomacy  for  nearly  three-quarters  of  a century.’ 

More  striking,  even,  than  the  successful  submission  of 
many  specific  international  disputes  to  arbitral  judgment 
is  the  fact  that  already  over  three  hundred  arbitration 
treaties  have  been  signed  between  the  various  nations. 
While  a number  of  them  only  apply  to  certain  specified 
kinds  of  difficulty,  there  are  many  others  which  cover  all 
disputes  not  affecting  matters  of  vital  interests  or  national 
honor,  and  a few  which  make  no  exceptions.  Chile  and 
Argentine  were  the  first  nations  to  adopt  an  unlimited 
arbitration  treaty,  which  was  signed  in  1903  and  fittingly 
commemorated  by  the  erection  high  up  in  the  Andes  of  a 
colossal  statue  of  Christ,  cast  from  old  cannon.  The 
inscription  on  its  base  with  clear  faith  declares:  “Sooner 
shall  these  mountains  crumble  into  dust  than  Argentine 
and  Chile  break  the  peace  to  which  they  have  pledged 
themselves  at  the  feet  of  Christ  the  Redeemer."  * 

XI 

WAR  AND  THE  SURVIVAL  OF  THE  FITTEST 

The  biological  argument  in  favor  of  war  is  based  on 
the  law  of  natural  selection.  Although  its  advocates  con- 


' Cf.  W.  I.  Hull,  “The  New  Peace  Movement,”  p.  153. 
“Cf.  “Christ  and  War,”  pp.  164,  165. 


SUPPLEMENTARY  NOTES 


133 


cede,  of  course,  that  other  factors  than  war  are  at  work 
to  ensure  the  survival  of  the  fittest,  yet  they  say  that 
modern  life  has  tended  to  lessen  the  effective  operation 
of  some  of  these  very  factors.  Take  disease,  for  ex- 
ample: time  was  when  it  invariably  slew  the  weakest; 
this  made  for  the  survival,  as  in  the  case  of  China,  of  the 
strongest  and  most  immune.  But  the  discoveries  of  mod- 
ern medicine  have  made  possible  the  survival  and  per- 
petuation of  the  weak  in  percentages  never  known  be- 
fore. The  race,  therefore,  it  is  claimed,  needs  a drastic 
method,  which  will  purge  it  of  all  that  is  unfit  to  survive, 
and  this  method  is  found  in  war. 

But  what  does  history  show  as  to  the  part  which  war 
has  played  in  promoting  the  survival  of  the  fittest? 
Primitive  man  was,  of  course,  confronted,  as  were  all  the 
animals  with  which  he  contended,  by  the  problem  of  se- 
curing his  living  without  losing  his  life.  His  intended 
victim  might  become  his  own  sepulcher.  This  placed  him 
in  active  antagonism  with  all  creatures,  brute  or  human, 
who  sought  his  life  or  whose  capture  might  be  to  him  a 
means  of  subsistence.  It  was  a struggle  for  existence, 
in  which  the  determining  factor  was  force.  Survival  was 
based  on  the  power  to  wage  effective  combat,  and  life 
was  the  stake. 

Because  of  his  comparative  unfitness  for  fighting,  how- 
ever, man  was  early  compelled  to  resort  to  other  than 
purely  physical  means  for  attaining  his  ends.  Without 
claws,  and  with  teeth  unsuited  for  battle,  he  was  a feeble 
contestant  in  the  presence  of  many  of  his  antagonists.  So 
he  discovered  the  use  of  weapons,  crude  at  first,  but 
gradually  shaped  into  effective  forms  for  cutting  and 
thrusting.  By  his  strength  and  skill  in  wielding  these 
weapons,  and  by  acting  in  concert  with  his  fellows,  he 


134  the  CHRISTIAN  EQUIVALENT  OF  WAR 


often  overcame  his  most  formidable  foes,  as  is  shown  by 
the  bones  which  have  been  found  in  the  caves  where  he 
dwelt.  And  so  began  the  process  in  man’s  development 
by  which  he  gradually  came  to  learn  the  value  of  co- 
operation. 

That  the  laws  of  evolution,  far  from  requiring  a con- 
stant appeal  to  force  between  man  and  man,  emphati- 
cally demand  the  progressive  subordination  of  such  ap- 
peal to  higher  influences,  was  affirmed  by  Herbert  Spen- 
cer himself,  who  declared  that  “in  social  groups  formed 
by  compounding  and  recompounding  primitive  hordes, 
conduct  remains  imperfectly  evolved  in  proportion  as 
there  continue  antagonisms  between  the  groups  and  an- 
tagonisms between  members  of  the  same  group.  . . . 
Hence  the  limit  of  evolution  can  be  reached  by  conduct 
only  in  permanently  peaceful  societies.  That  perfect  ad- 
justment of  acts  to  ends  in  maintaining  life,  which  is  ef- 
fected by  each  without  hindering  others  from  effecting 
like  perfect  adjustments,  is,  in  its  very  definition,  shown 
to  constitute  a kind  of  conduct  that  can  be  approached 
only  as  War  decreases  and  dies  out.”  The  same  scientist 
made  the  sweeping  assertion  that  “advance  to  the  highest 
forms  of  man  and  society  depends  on  the  decline  of  mili- 
tancy.” * 

Among  later  scientists  no  less  influential  a man  than 
Sir  E.  Ray  Lankester  of  Great  Britain  has  voiced  the 
same  opinion:  “Neither  the  more  ancient  wars  of  man- 
kind for  conquest  and  migration,  nor  the  present  and 
future  wars  for  commercial  privilege,  have  any  real 
equivalence  to  the  simple  removal  by  death  of  the  unfit, 
and  the  survival  and  reproduction  of  the  fit,  which  we 


1 Quoted  in  W.  L.  Crane’s  “Th*  Fassine  of  War,”  p.  43. 


SUPPLEMENTARY  NOTES 


135 


know  as  Natural  Selection.  . . . Knowledge,  reason, 
self-consciousness,  will,  are  the  attributes  of  Man.  They 
justify  the  view  that  Man  forms  a new  departure  in  the 
gradual  unfolding  of  Nature’s  predestined  scheme.  The 
volition  of  Man  has  become  a power  in  Nature  which 
has  profoundly  modified  not  only  man’s  own  history  but 
that  of  the  face  of  the  planet  on  which  he  exists.  . . . 
At  every  step  of  his  progress  man  has  receded  further 
and  further  from  the  ancient  rule  exercised  by  Nature.”* 

From  the  practical  point  of  view  it  is  plain  that  war 
could,  at  the  best,  only  tend  to  propagate  a race  fitted  for 
war.  In  ancient  times  when  warfare  was  largely  a matter 
of  individual  contests,  the  struggle  of  armies  doubtless 
resulted  in  a survival  of  many  of  the  best  fighters.  But 
modern  methods  have  changed  all  this.  Except  in  guerilla 
warfare  the  quality  of  the  individual  has  become  a less 
prominent  factor.  The  weak  can  kill  the  strong,  and 
machine  guns  mow  down  whole  ranks  impartially.  There 
is  little  opportunity  in  modern  warfare  for  the  operation 
of  the  law  of  natural  selection,  except  in  the  process  of 
enlistment. 

Such  selection  is  artificial,  not  natural,  and  accom- 
plishes in  the  end  the  very  opposite  result  from  the  one 
which  the  law  of  Natural  Selection  should  produce.  It 
“occurs  chiefly  before  the  fighting  even  begins,  and  re- 
sults in  the  temporary  or  permanent  removal  from  the 
general  population  of  a special  part  of  it,  and  the  de- 
liberate exposure  of  this  part  to  disease  and  death.”  * 
And  those  thus  exposed  are  not  only  physically  the  fit- 
test, but  are  also  usually  above  the  average  of  their  fel- 


^ E.  R.  Lankester,  “The  Kingdom  of  Man,”  p.  27. 
s Vernon  L.  Kellogg  in  Tlie  Atlantic  Monthly  tor  July,  I9i3>  article 
on  “Eugenics  and  Militarism.” 


136  THE  CHRISTIAN  EQUIVALENT  OF  WAR 


lows  in  other  qualities.  The  greater  the  issues  at  stake, 
the  more  does  war  prove  attractive  to  men  of  character 
and  worth.  For  the  elimination  of  such,  rather  than  for 
their  survival,  the  law  of  war  forever  works.  War  thus 
promotes  the  survival  not  of  the  strong,  but  of  the  weak, 
not  of  the  fit,  but  of  the  unfit. 


XII 

WAR  AND  NATIONAL  SOLIDARITY 

War  is  often  defended  on  the  ground  that  it  is  a neces- 
sary means  for  inducing  and  promoting  national  solidar- 
ity. Many  examples  are  quoted  in  proof  of  this  conten- 
tion. In  conquering  all  the  nations  lying  about  the 
Mediterranean  Sea,  Rome  successfully  welded  a hetero- 
geneous mass  of  people  into  a united  and  powerful  em- 
pire. Great  Britain’s  solidarity  was  won  through  her 
world-wide  conquests.  The  American  colonies  were  fused 
into  a united  nation  by  their  war  for  independence,  and 
Bismarck  at  the  head  of  an  army  representing  forty 
millions  of  people  belonging  to  many  separate  and  more 
or  less  unfriendly  states,  bound  them  together  with  bands 
of  steel  by  hurling  their  united  battalions  against  a na- 
tion whose  ambitions  he  conceived  to  be  inimical  to  the 
growth  of  Empire.  And  so  throughout  the  list,  one  can 
find  scarcely  a war  of  which  it  has  not  been  said  that 
it  has  stimulated  national  vitality  and  unity,  and  the  con- 
clusion is  that  war  is  an  indispensable  means  to  this  de- 
sirable end. 

It  may  be  conceded  at  the  outset  that  national  solidarity 
has  often  followed  in  the  wake  of  war.  But  does  this 


SUPPLEMENTARY  NOTES 


137 


prove  that  war  is  the  best  means  for  promoting  unity,  or 
that  war  is  really  the  cause  of  the  unity  which  accom- 
panies it? 

As  the  case  of  Germany  is  cited  perhaps  more  fre- 
quently than  that  of  any  other  in  this  connection,  we  may 
properly  attempt  an  analysis  of  the  situation  at  the  time 
of  the  Franco-Prussian  war.  What,  for  instance,  were 
the  conditions  which  prevented  the  smaller  German 
states  from  coalescing  more  completely  before  the  strug- 
gle with  Louis  Napoleon  began?  The  Zollverein,  or  Com- 
mercial League,  organized  in  1834  and  Irenewed  rh  1841, 
had  already  done  much  to  cultivate  a spirit  of  unity 
among  the  German  states.  But  it  was  the  foolish  desire 
of  the  petty  German  potentates  to  retain  the  right  to 
make  war  on  each  other  which  prevented  them  from 
achieving  the  very  union  which  the  Zollverein  would 
otherwise  have  brought  to  a high  degree  of  strength.^ 
No  doubt,  as  Canon  Grane  has  pointed  out,  “the  forcing 
heat  of  the  crisis  brought  about  by  Bismarck  caused  the 
tree  of  German  Unity  to  burst  into  flower.  But  it  might 
have  blossomed  ages  before,  but  for  the  retarding  effect 
of  the  militaristic  spirit  in  the  separate  states.”  ^ 

Great  Britain  was  able  to  begin  the  process  of  unifica- 
tion at  a much  earlier  date  than  Germany,  because  she 
earlier  saw  the  wisdom  of  eliminating  military  rivalry 
among  her  component  units.  So  that  today  she  maintains 
her  solidarity,  not  because  she  has  fought  or  intends  to 
fight,  but  because  she  has  deliberately  chosen  to  eliminate 
the  appeal  to  arms  as  between  one  part  of  her  Empire 
and  another. 

The  more  the  trend  of  history  is  scrutinized  the  more 


' Cf.  PerCT  Ashley,  “Modern  Tariff  History,”  pp.  14-18. 
^ W.  L.  Grane,  “The  Passing  of  War,”  p.  249. 


138  THE  CHRISTIAN  EQUIVALENT  OF  WAR 


is  one  forced  to  the  conviction  that  the  inevitable  tendency 
“of  war  preparations,  and  the  war-spirit,  is  to  disinte- 
grate, not  to  unite.  Nothing  has  tended  so  much  as  war 
to  retard  the  development  of  those  great  national  con- 
federations which  are  the  wonder  of  the  modern  world.”  ‘ 
Far  from  being  a promoter  of  union  and  federation,  war 
is  their  greatest  hindrance.  If  national  solidarity  must 
be  achieved  by  arms,  by  arms  must  it  be  maintained. 
There  is  strength  in  union,  but  union  will  always  prove 
unstable  when  it  is  based  on  physical  strength. 

XIII 

WAR  AND  NATIONAL  EXISTENCE 

There  are  those  who  believe  that  no  nation  can  be  sure 
of  a continued  existence  unless  it  is  heavily  armed.  This 
theory  seems  to  us  to  involve  such  assumptions  as  the  four 
enumerated  below : 

(1)  That  each  nation  is  so  sovereign  and  independent 
a unit  as  to  have  no  responsibility  for  the  welfare  of  any 
other  similar  unit;  this  assumption  disregards  the  unity 
of  all  men  as  children  of  a common  Father  God,  and  the 
increasingly  recognized  principle  of  the  family  of  na- 
tions. 

(2)  That  every  nation  will,  and  inevitably  must,  act 
from  motives  of  self-interest  only;  this  assumes  that  the 
ethical  standards  which  obtain  in  individual  and  com- 
munal life  are  not  applicable  in  the  larger  world-rela- 
tionships. 

(3)  That  for  its  own  sustenance,  and  therefore  for  its 

* W.  L.  Grane,  “The  Passing  of  War,”  p.  250. 


SUPPLEMENTARY  NOTES 


139 


very  existence,  each  nation  is  forced  to  compete  with 
every  other  nation;  this  does  not  take  into  account  the 
fact  that  in  modern  life  the  industrial  and  economic  boun- 
daries, far  from  coinciding  with  those  which  are  politi- 
cal, cross  and  re-cross  them  at  every  conceivable  angle, 
so  that  the  opportunity  for  an  individual  to  make  a liveli- 
hood is  controlled  by  forces  other  than  those  dependent 
upon  the  mere  existence  or  influence  of  his  own  par- 
ticular government. 

(4)  That  each  nation  is  solely  dependent  upon  its  own 
physical  strength  for  the  protection  of  its  rights  and  in- 
terests; this  fails  to  admit  the  possibility  of  an  effective 
use  in  international  relationships  of  such  legal  and  judi- 
cial agencies  as  have  already  proved  successful  in  lifting 
justice  and  truth  to  a place  of  determining  influence  in 
many  of  the  more  limited  relationships  of  life. 


XIV 

CHINA  AND  THE  CAREER  OF  “IGNOBLE  EASE” 

Ex-President  Roosevelt  has  appealed  to  his  fellow- 
countrymen  to  take  warning  from  China  and  not  be  “con- 
tent to  rot  by  inches  in  ignoble  ease  within  our  borders,” 
and  to  be  assured  that,  unless  we  heed  the  warning,  some 
day  “suddenly  we  should  find,  beyond  the  shadow  of  a 
question,  what  China  has  already  found,  that  in  this  world 
the  nation  that  has  trained  itself  to  a career  of  unwarlike 
and  isolated  ease,  is  bound,  in  the  end,  to  go  down  before 
the  other  nations  which  have  not  lost  the  manly  and  ad- 
venturous qualities.”  ^ Our  ex-President  has  surely  failed 


^ Theodore  Roosevelt,  “The  Strenuous  Life,”  p.  6. 


140  THE  CHRISTIAN  EQUIVALENT  OF  WAR 


to  read  the  history  of  China  aright.  True  it  is  that 
China’s  progress  has  been  hindered  by  her  isolation,  but 
we  may  well  doubt  whether  war  was  the  only  way  to 
have  broken  it  up,  and  also  whether  it  was  in  any  sense 
a wise  method. 

What  is  meant  by  the  words  “to  go  down”?  Where 
now  are  the  Empires  of  Babylon  and  Assyria,  of  Greece 
and  Rome,  which,  coeval  with  China,  were  founded  and 
maintained  by  force?  With  all  the  handicap  placed  upon 
the  Middle  Kingdom  by  her  seclusion,  what  warlike  na- 
tion of  the  West  can  boast  an  ancient  literature  as 
voluminous  and  as  pure  as  that  of  peaceful  China?  What 
long-lived  nation  reared  by  the  “gory  nurse  that  trained 
societies  to  cohesiveness”  can  show  the  fundamental 
democracy  of  spirit  and  unity  of  culture  which  the  Chi- 
nese people  possess  ? What  other  nation,  ancient  or  mod- 
ern, trained  by  war  to  “the  manly  and  adventurous  quali- 
ties” has  ever  achieved  a victory  in  social  morality  equiva- 
lent in  magnitude  or  difficulty,  or  in  the  brevity  of  time 
in  which  it  was  achieved,  to  the  abolition  of  the  use  of 
opium?  If  only  China  can  be  protected  from  militarism 
and  the  war-spirit,  she  will  yet  demonstrate  to  the  world 
the  virility  of  a race  which  finds  its  discipline,  not  in 
war,  but  in  peaceful  service,  and  will  fulfil  the  promise 
that  the  meek  shall  inherit  the  earth. 

XV 

WHY  DID  JESUS  ORDER  HIS  DISCIPLES  TO 
BUY  SWORDS? 

Luke’s  account  of  the  instructions  which  Jesus  gave 
to  His  disciples  to  sell  their  cloaks  and  buy  swords  is 


SUPPLEMENTARY  NOTES 


141 

variously  interpreted/  The  author  of  “Christ  and  War” 
says : “It  is  probable  that  we  no  longer  possess  the  means 
of  understanding  this  saying,  but  that  it  implies  that  Jesus 
intended  His  followers  then  or  later  to  resort  to  arms 
seems  unlikely,  because: 

(1)  It  is  quite  clear  from  the  Gospels  that  Jesus 

knew  He  was  going  to  His  death,  and  did  not 
attempt  to  evade  it. 

(2)  Jesus  also  appears  to  have  said  that  two  swords 

were  enough  (v.  38)  : this  they  certainly  were 
not  if  intended  for  the  defense  of  twelve  men. 

(3)  When  one  disciple  used  his  sword,  Jesus  sternly 

rebuked  him  (Matt.  xxvi.  51,  52). 

(4)  There  is  no  trace  in  any  account  we  have  of  the 

early  Church  that  its  members  defended  them- 
selves against  persecutors. 

“That  the  early  Church  was  perplexed  by  this  verse 
may  be  seen  by  the  passages  in  which  the  Fathers  explain 
away  its  evident  discordance  with  the  faith  and  practice 
of  the  Church.  . . . Generally  it  must  be  said  of  all 
these  passages  that  they  can  only  be  understood  in  the 
light  of  the  total  impression  of  all  that  Jesus  Christ  said 
and  was.”* 

Mr.  Dodge’s  interpretation  of  the  same  passage  is  very 
suggestive : “All  the  conduct  of  our  Lord  has  meaning 
to  it,  and  much  of  it  was  with  an  express  view  to  teach 
His  disciples  by  way  of  example.  A little  before  He  was 
betrayed.  He  ordered  His  disciples  to  take  swords.  The 
object  of  this  must  have  been  either  to  use  them  for  de- 


* Luke  xxii.  35-38. 

^ W.  E.  Wilson,  “Christ  and  War,”  pp.  17,  18. 


142  THE  CHRISTIAN  EQUIVALENT  OF  WAR 

fense,  or  for  some  other  purpose.  The  event  proves  that 
they  were  not  taken  for  self-defense.  The  question  then 
is,  For  what  were  they  taken?  The  event  appears  fully 
to  answer  the  question,  viz. : To  prohibit,  by  way  of  ex- 
ample, the  use  of  them  for  self-defense  in  the  most  trying 
situation  possible.  If  any  situation  would  justify  self- 
defense  with  carnal  weapons,  it  must  have  been  the  situa- 
tion in  which  our  Lord  and  His  disciples  were  placed  at 
the  time  He  was  betrayed.  They  were  in  a public  garden, 
and  they  were  assaulted  by  a mob,  contrary  to  the  statutes 
of  the  Romans  and  the  laws  of  the  Jews;  and  the  object 
was  to  take  His  life.  This  the  disciples  knew,  and  Peter 
judged  it  a proper  time  for  defense,  and  drew  his  sword 
and  smote  a servant  of  the  High  Priest  and  cut  off  his 
ear.  As  our  Lord’s  Kingdom  was  not  of  this  world.  He 
would  not  suffer  His  subjects  to  use  the  weapons  of  this 
world  in  any  situation.  He  therefore  healed  the  wound 
they  made  and  rebuked  Peter  for  his  mistaken  zeal. 
‘Then  said  Jesus  unto  him.  Put  up  again  thy  sword  into 
his  place;  for  all  they  that  take  the  sword  shall  perish 
with  the  sword.  Thinkest  thou  that  I cannot  pray  to  my 
Father,  and  he  would  presently  send  me  more  than  twelve 
legions  of  angels?’  Here  we  see  that  our  Lord  not  only 
forbade  His  disciples  to  use  the  sword  in  self-defense,  but 
added  a dreadful  penalty  to  transgressors, — ‘all  they  that 
take  the  sword  shall  perish  with  the  sword.’  The  disci- 
ples did  not  then  fully  understand  that  His  Kingdom  was 
not  of  this  world.  As  soon  as  they  were  prohibited  using 
the  weapons  of  this  world  they  all  forsook  Him  and 
fled.”  ^ 

^ David  Low  Dodge,  “War  Inconsistent  with  the  Religion  of  Jesus 
Christ,”  pp.  144-146. 


SUPPLEMENTARY  NOTES 


143 


XVI 

THE  CALL  OF  THE  PRESENT  CRISIS 

Eight  years  ago  Professor  Bosworth,  of  Oberlin,  wrote 
the  following  significant  and  almost  prophetic  words : “In 
this  process  of  enlarging  conception  it  has  become  in- 
creasingly clear  that  this  which  at  first  was  called  the 
Kingdom  of  God  is  a developing  civilization  of  brotherly 
sons  of  God  in  which  two  things  will  occur:  first,  every 
personality  will  have  opportunity  for  the  development  of 
its  latent  powers,  opportunity  to  become  what  God  means 
it  to  be;  and  second,  all  the  forces  latent  in  the  natural 
environment  of  these  personalities  will  be  brought  out  of 
earth  or  air  and  placed  by  human  effort  increasingly  at 
the  service  of  men.  In  this  civilization  of  friendly  work- 
men, living  in  the  presence  of  the  God  who  is  their  Fa- 
ther, the  long  unfailing  aspiration  of  Jesus  for  humanity 
shall  be  realized. 

“In  this  process  by  which  the  Spirit  of  Jesus  makes 
men  understand  more  and  more  clearly  what  is  involved 
in  His  revelation  of  God  and  God’s  will  for  the  life  of 
men,  crises  occur.  It  is  a process  with  crises.  Perhaps 
there  will  finally  be  some  great  crisis  comparable  with 
that  in  which  the  revelation  of  God  was  made  by  Jesus 
Christ  in  terms  of  human  life  and  death  and  resurrection, 
human  struggle  and  victory,  two  thousand  years  ago. 
However  that  may  be,  lesser  crises  in  the  process  cer- 
tainly occur  when  men  make  swift  advance  in  their  under- 
standing of  God  and  of  His  will  for  the  life  of  the  world. 

“The  present  is  such  a crisis.  The  crisis  is  due  to  the 
fact  that  sociological  conditions  have  suddenly  brought 


144  the  CHRISTIAN  EQUIVALENT  OF  WAR 


men  of  widely  different  classes  into  unusually  close  rela- 
tion to  each  other.  The  world  has  never  before,  in  so 
short  a time,  experienced  changes  comparable  with  those 
that  have  occurred  in  the  last  few  decades.  Men  have 
been  forced  into  such  close  contact  that  the  welfare  of 
each  is  dependent  upon  the  conduct  of  others  to  a degree 
hitherto  unknown.  Men  have  been  forced  together  geo- 
graphically. A man,  without  rising  from  his  office  chair, 
may,  in  a few  moments,  through  telephone,  telegraph, 
and  cable,  interchange  thought  with  a man  on  the  other 
side  of  the  earth.  It  is  as  if  he  could  almost  hear  his 
voice  and  feel  his  hand.  Men  are  being  drawn  together 
industrially.  The  miner  comes  up  the  shaft  with  his 
grimy  face  and  looks  the  coal  baron  straight  in  the  eye. 
The  two  men  are  brought  close  together  and  must  talk 
it  out  face  to  face.  Men  are  being  brought  together  so- 
cially. Within  the  lifetime  of  men  still  in  active  business 
Chicago  was  a small  village  and  in  the  village  was  a small 
tradesman.  The  village  became  a metropolis,  the  small 
tradesman  became  a merchant  prince,  and  his  daughter 
became  the  wife  of  the  Viceroy  of  India — all  within  the 
limits  of  a single  lifetime.  Irresistible  forces  which  no 
man  can  control  have  been  steadily  bringing  men  closer 
together  and  making  the  welfare  of  each  dependent  upon 
the  behavior  of  the  other,  as  never  before. 

“The  result  of  crowding  men  so  close  together  may  be 
that  they  will  fall  upon  each  other  in  deadly  hatred  or 
that  they  will  be  bound  together  with  ties  of  mutual 
respect  and  brotherly  good  will.  If  they  come  together 
only  to  hate  each  other,  they  will  fall  apart,  and  civiliza- 
tion will  retrograde  to  a point  from  which  it  cannot  come 
again  to  the  present  point  for  some  centuries.  What  the 
outcome  of  the  present  crisis  shall  be  depends  upon  one 


SUPPLEMENTARY  NOTES 


145 


thing,  namely,  the  character  of  the  men  concerned  in  the 
crisis.  Can  Jesus  Christ  have  the  kind  of  men  He  wants 
to  thrust  down  into  the  thick  of  life?  Can  He  find  His 
type  of  man  in  sufficient  abundance  to  bring  the  present 
crisis  to  a successful  issue?  If  so,  they  will  be  what  He 
called  them  of  old,  ‘the  salt  of  the  earth’ — that  which 
preserves  civilization  from  decay  and  disintegration. 

“The  present  crisis,  then,  constitutes  a call  for  charac- 
ter. The  old  words  ring  out  with  new  meaning:  ‘Re- 
pent; for  the  kingdom  of  God  is  at  hand’;  change  your 
lives,  for  God’s  new  order  comes  swiftly  on.”^ 


^Edward  Increase  Bosworth,  “A  Call  for  Character,”  pp.  8-1 1. 


SELECTED  BIBLIOGRAPHY 


SELECTED  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

L On  the  Historical  Aspect 

“A  League  of  Peace.”  By  Andrew  Carnegie,  LL.D.  A 
Rectorial  Address  delivered  to  the  Students  in  the 
University  of  St.  Andrews  October  17,  1905.  New 
York.  The  New  York  Peace  Society.  1911.  pp.  48. 

A very  instructive  survey  of  the  historical  development  of 
the  ideas  of  peace. 

“The  New  Peace  Movement.”  By  William  I.  Hull,  Ph.D., 
Professor  of  History  and  International  Relations  in 
Swarthmore  College.  Boston.  World  Peace  Foun- 
dation. 1912.  pp.  218. 

A collection  of  addresses  delivered  on  various  occasions, 
chiefly  on  the  achievements  of  the  Hague  Conferences  and 
the  outlook  for  universal  peace  through  the  reign  of  justice. 
Though  scholarly  and  full  of  illustrative  details  these  ad- 
dresses are  adapted  to  popular  reading  and  are  very  in- 
spiring. There  is  much  repetition,  due  to  the  nature  of  the 
circumstances  under  which  the  speeches  were  originally  made. 

“The  Nemesis  of  Armaments.”  By  Charles  Edward  Jef- 
ferson. Reprint  from  The  Independent,  New  York. 
Church  Peace  Union.  1914.  pp.  14. 

A discussion  of  the  bearing  of  the  present  European  war 
on  the  question  as  to  whether  armaments,  as  militarists  claim; 
are  really  guarantees  of  peace,  liberty,  justice  and  interna- 
tional order. 

“The  Blood  of  the  Nation.”  By  David  Starr  Jordan.  A 
Study  of  the  decay  of  races  through  the  survival  of 
149 


ISO  THE  CHRISTIAN  EQUIVALENT  OF  WAR 


the  unfit,  Boston.  World  Peace  Foundation,  1912. 
pp.  82  paper. 

A graphic  exhibit  of  the  tendency  of  war  to  prevent  the 
survival  of  the  fittest. 

The  Anglo-American  agreement  of  1817  for  disarma- 
ment on  the  Great  Lakes.  By  Charles  H.  Levermore. 
Boston.  World  Peace  Foundation.  1914.  pp.  28. 

“Social  Progress  and  the  Darwinian  Theory.”  A Com- 
parative Study  of  the  Philosophy  of  Force  and  the 
Moral  Law  as  the  Basis  of  Society.  By  George  W. 
Nasmyth,  Ph.D.  New  York.  G.  P.  Putnam’s  Sons. 
In  preparation. 

Traces  the  manner  in  which  the  doctrines  of  “the  struggle 
for  existence”  and  the  “survival  of  the  fittest”  have  extended 
all  through  the  social  order  from  the  classic  diplomacy  of 
international  relations  to  the  conception  of  business  as  war- 
fare and  the  use  of  violence  in  industrial  relations  to  its 
logical  development  in  the  ethics  of  personal  conduct.  The 
biological  and  sociological  errors  of  the  philosophy  of  force 
are  made  clear.  The  intellectual  revolution  in  which  men  are 
turning  away  from  force  as  a futile  instrument  in  modern 
civilization,  and  are  coming  to  rely  more  upon  social  and 
international  justice  as  the  touchstone  of  all  progress  and 
the  expansion  of  life,  leads  to  a discussion  of  the  organization 
of  the  world  under  a system  of  justice  and  law  as  the  unify- 
ing thesis  of  all  social  progress  and  the  great  constructive 
movement  of  modern  history. 


11.  On  the  Economic  Aspect 

“The  Great  Illusion.”  By  Norman  Angell.  A Study  of 
the  relation  of  military  power  to  national  advantage. 
Fourth  revised  and  enlarged  edition.  New  York.  G. 
P.  Putnam’s  Sons.  1913.  pp.  xxii  + 416. 

A strong  and  influential  statement  of  the  economic  argu- 
ment against  war. 


SELECTED  BIBLIOGRAPHY 


151 

“Arms  and  Industry.”  By  Norman  Angell.  A Study  of 
the  foundations  of  international  polity.  New  York. 
G.  P.  Putnam’s  Sons.  1914.  pp.  248. 

A continuation  and  amplification  of  the  arguments  in  the 
author’s  “Great  Illusion.” 

“Discourses  on  War.”  By  William  Ellery  Channing. 
With  an  introduction  by  Edwin  D.  Mead.  Boston. 
World  Peace  Foundation.  1903.  pp.  229. 

Classic  arguments  appealingly  set  forth  by  a great  peace 
orator  of  another  generation. 

“Commerce  and  War.”  By  Alvin  Saunders  Johnson,  Pro- 
fessor of  Economics,  Cornell  University.  New  York, 
International  Conciliation.  New  York.  American 
Association  for  International  Conciliation.  1914. 
No.  77.  pp.  14. 

“War  and  the  Interests  of  Labor.”  By  Alvin  Saunders 
Johnson,  Professor  of  Economics,  Cornell  Uni- 
versity. Reprinted  from  Atlantic  Monthly,  March, 
1914.  New  York.  International  Conciliation.  1914. 
American  Association  for  International  Conciliation. 
No.  80.  pp.  22. 


III.  On  the  Moral  Aspect 

“Newer  Ideals  of  Peace.”  By  Jane  Addams,  Hull- 
House,  Chicago,  Author  of  “Democracy  and  Social 
Ethics,”  etc.  New  York.  The  Macmillan  Company. 
(London:  Macmillan  & Co.,  Ltd.)  1911.  All  rights 
reserved,  pp.  xviii  + 243. 

“The  Passing  of  War.”  By  William  Leighton  Grane.  A 
Study  in  things  that  make  for  peace.  Fourth  edition. 
Macmillan  Company.  1914.  pp.  xliv  + 302. 


152  THE  CHRISTIAN  EQUIVALENT  OF  WAR 


An  argument  to  show  that  war  is  essentially  wrong.  Not 
opposed  to  Norman  Angell’s  contention  that  war  is  eco- 
nomically futile,  but  complementary  to  it. 

“The  Double  Standard  in  Regard  to  Fighting.”  By  Geo. 
M.  Stratton,  Professor  of  Psychology  at  the  Uni- 
versity of  California.  International  Conciliation, 
1912.  No.  59.  New  York.  American  Association 
for  International  Conciliation,  pp.  14. 

A statement  of  the  fact  that  international  conduct  is  often 
judged  by  lower  standards  than  are  the  acts  of  individuals, 
and  of  the  grounds  for  hoping  that  ultimately  there  will  be 
but  one  ethical  standard  for  all  conduct  whether  individual, 
communal  or  international. 

“The  Moral  Damage  of  War.”  By  Walter  Walsh.  Gil- 
fillan  Memorial  Church,  Dundee.  Boston.  Ginn  & 
Company.  1906.  pp.  462. 

An  impassioned  argument  against  war  because  of  the  moral 
damage  it  works  on  the  nation,  and  its  people. 


IV.  On  Christianity  and  War 

“The  Christ  Method  of  Peace  Making.”  By  W.  Evans 
Darby,  B.D.,  LL.D.,  Secretary  of  the  Peace  Society. 
Addresses  delivered  at  Bow  Church,  Cheapside,  Lon- 
don. London.  Headley  Brothers.  To  the  Rev.  A.  W. 
Hutton,  M.A.,  Rector  of  St.  Mary-le-bow,  Cheap- 
side,  E.C.  pp.  126. 

“War  Inconsistent  with  the  Religion  of  Jesus  Christ.” 
By  David  Low  Dodge.  With  an  introduction  by  Ed- 
win D.  Mead.  Boston.  For  The  International  Union 
by  Ginn  & Company.  1905.  Contents  pp.  xxiv  + 168. 

“Missions  and  International  Peace.”  By  Rev.  Charles  E. 
Jefferson,  D.D.,  Pastor  of  Broadway  Tabernacle, 
Centennial  Meeting  of  the  American  Board  in 


SELECTED  BIBLIOGRAPHY 


IS3 

Tremont  Temple,  Boston,  Wednesday  evening,  Octo- 
ber 12,  1910.  New  York.  New  York  Peace  Society. 
1911.  pp.  22. 

“The  New  Testament  as  a Social  Document.”  By  George 
W.  Nasmyth,  Ph.D.  New  York.  G.  P.  Putnam’s 
Sons.  In  preparation. 

Seeks  to  give  a rational  basis  in  terms  of  biology,  eco- 
nomics, and  sociology,  for  the  practical  program  of  social 
reconstruction  which  the  author  believes  was  the  essence  of 
Christ’s  message,  judged  by  Christ’s  text,  “By  their  fruits  ye 
shall  know  them.”  With  our  modern  instruments  of  the  so- 
cial sciences  we  are  now  able  to  demonstrate  those  funda- 
mental laws  of  human  relationship  which  Jesus  announced 
2000  years  ago. 

“The  Heart  of  the  War.”  By  Julian  K.  Smyth,  author 
of  “Footprints  of  the  Saviour,”  “Holy  Names,”  “Re- 
ligion and  Life,”  etc.  The  War  as  a Challenge  to 
Faith — its  spiritual  causes — its  call  for  a new  al- 
legiance to  the  prince  of  peace.  New  York.  The 
New  Church  Press,  Inc.  pp.  156+ Prayer. 

“Christ  and  War : the  Reasonableness  of  Disarmament  on 
Christian,  Humanitarian,  and  Economic  Grounds.” 
By  William  E.  Wilson,  B.D.,  Lecturer  at  Wood- 
brooke,  Warden  and  Tutor  of  Kingsmead  Hostel.  A 
peace  Study  text-book  with  a Prefatory  letter  by 
Dr.  Rendel  Harris.  London.  James  Clarke  & Com- 
pany. 1913.  pp.  212. 

The  early  chapters  discuss  war  from  the  Biblical  point 
of  view,  followed  by  a rapid  historical  sketch  of  the  growth 
of  the  peace  idea.  Arguments  for  militarism  are  stated  and 
answered,  and  the  facts  in  modern  life  which  make  for  peace 
are  rapidly  sketched.  The  book  closes  with  an  attempt  to 
answer  from  the  point  of  view  of  a British  subject,  “What 
shall  we  do?”  The  book  assumes  that  the  Biblical  argu- 
ment against  war  is  final  for  the  Christian,  but  declares  that 
the  economic  argument  corroborates  the  Biblical  view.  The 
author  is  a member  of  the  society  of  Friends. 


154  the  CHRISTIAN  EQUIVALENT  OF  WAR 


V.  General  Discussions 

“Armaments  and  their  Results.”  By  Andrew  Carnegie. 
New  York.  The  Peace  Society  of  the  City  of  New 
York.  1909.  pp.  8. 

“Nava!  Waste.”  By  David  Starr  Jordan.  World  Peace 
Foundation.  Boston.  World  Peace  Foundation. 
1913.  pp.  18. 

“What  Shall  We  Say?”  By  David  Starr  Jordan.  Being 
comments  on  current  matters  of  War  and  Waste. 
Boston.  World  Peace  Foundation.  1913.  pp.  82. 

“The  Cause  of  the  War.”  By  Charles  Edward  Jefferson, 
Pastor  of  The  Broadway  Tabernacle.  New  York. 
T.  Y.  Crowell  & Co.  1914.  pp.  64. 

“The  Causes  of  War.”  By  the  Hon.  Elihu  Root.  A 
Speech  delivered  at  a dinner  given  to  him  by  the 
New  York  Peace  Society  in  recognition  of  his  ser- 
vices to  international  peace.  New  York.  The  Peace 
Society  of  the  City  of  New  York.  pp.  12. 

“Addresses  on  War.”  By  Charles  Sumner.  With  an  In- 
troduction by  Edwin  D.  Mead.  Boston.  For  the  In- 
ternational Union  by  Ginn  & Co.  1904.  pp.  xxvii  + 
320. 

“The  Ethics  of  Force.”  By  H.  E.  Warner.  Boston. 
World  Peace  Foundation.  1905.  pp.  126. 

A statement  of  the  ethical  arguments  from  the  biological 
point  of  view.  Discusses  the  ethics  of  heroism  and  of 
patriotism,  and  attempts  to  answer  whether  the  war  can  be 
defended  on  the  authority  of  Christ  or  of  reason. 


Yp.. 


Date  Due  | 

'qrie'3 

r 

t 

' 

JUN-W 

: 

1 

f 

1 

1 

